1
00:00:00,000 --> 00:00:02,280
 >> All right.

2
00:00:02,280 --> 00:00:10,380
 >> All right, it is now 5.30 p.m. on Monday, July 8, 2024.

3
00:00:10,380 --> 00:00:13,020
 This is the board of ethics meeting

4
00:00:13,020 --> 00:00:17,460
 and I am calling this meeting to order.

5
00:00:17,460 --> 00:00:21,460
 So we do not have any presentation

6
00:00:21,460 --> 00:00:22,760
 for the members of public.

7
00:00:22,760 --> 00:00:26,460
 We do have someone who will speak before one of the items.

8
00:00:26,460 --> 00:00:32,340
 So we'll start with item A, BLE24-23,

9
00:00:32,340 --> 00:00:37,680
 consider approval of minutes from June 3, 2024.

10
00:00:37,680 --> 00:00:40,240
 Any concerns about the minutes?

11
00:00:40,240 --> 00:00:41,640
 >> I move.

12
00:00:41,640 --> 00:00:46,320
 >> So Zeltner, David Zeltner moves to accept them.

13
00:00:46,320 --> 00:00:47,180
 >> I'll second.

14
00:00:47,180 --> 00:00:50,120
 >> And Dustin Palak is moving to accept them.

15
00:00:50,120 --> 00:00:51,560
 All in favor?

16
00:00:51,560 --> 00:00:52,600
 >> Aye.

17
00:00:52,600 --> 00:00:54,460
 >> It's unanimous.

18
00:00:54,460 --> 00:00:59,760
 So I want to move to BLE24-26.

19
00:00:59,760 --> 00:01:02,400
 I would like to suggest that we postpone this item

20
00:01:02,400 --> 00:01:05,440
 until the end of the meeting so that we can talk

21
00:01:05,440 --> 00:01:07,700
 about everything else first.

22
00:01:07,700 --> 00:01:11,740
 So I guess we would need a motion for that if you guys agree.

23
00:01:11,740 --> 00:01:18,140
 This is where we would talk about future meeting topics.

24
00:01:18,140 --> 00:01:19,380
 So who is that?

25
00:01:19,380 --> 00:01:20,680
 >> You can make that decision as a chair.

26
00:01:20,680 --> 00:01:21,980
 >> Oh, okay, I mean, I just made that decision.

27
00:01:21,980 --> 00:01:23,760
 >> Or you can entertain a motion if you prefer.

28
00:01:23,760 --> 00:01:25,520
 >> I'm addicted or I'm doing it.

29
00:01:25,520 --> 00:01:28,760
 Okay? So, yeah.

30
00:01:28,760 --> 00:01:31,000
 >> You want to be seen first then?

31
00:01:31,000 --> 00:01:32,500
 >> Item C first then?

32
00:01:32,500 --> 00:01:37,540
 >> Yeah, so now we're down to item C, BLE24-025.

33
00:01:37,540 --> 00:01:41,440
 And we do have someone, this is the management reports.

34
00:01:41,440 --> 00:01:44,040
 So would you want to give your management report first

35
00:01:44,040 --> 00:01:46,880
 and then we can let our speaker speak or?

36
00:01:46,880 --> 00:01:50,920
 >> Sure. We just, the management report is really just an update

37
00:01:50,920 --> 00:01:54,220
 on the 2024 packet of proposed amendments.

38
00:01:54,220 --> 00:01:59,060
 Very briefly, the city council gave direction to move forward

39
00:01:59,060 --> 00:02:00,720
 with one of the proposed amendments,

40
00:02:00,720 --> 00:02:05,620
 which was to redefine the definition

41
00:02:05,620 --> 00:02:08,000
 of relative per the board's direction.

42
00:02:08,000 --> 00:02:11,500
 The other proposed changes were rejected,

43
00:02:11,500 --> 00:02:14,740
 which included several items that I will not list right now,

44
00:02:14,740 --> 00:02:16,600
 but you are all aware of.

45
00:02:16,600 --> 00:02:21,040
 So you can answer questions about the meeting, but this is time

46
00:02:21,040 --> 00:02:22,420
 for you all to talk about it as well.

47
00:02:22,420 --> 00:02:23,820
 >> Yeah. Okay.

48
00:02:23,820 --> 00:02:27,280
 So I would like to call -- oh.

49
00:02:27,280 --> 00:02:28,720
 >> One question.

50
00:02:28,720 --> 00:02:29,780
 I missed part of that.

51
00:02:29,780 --> 00:02:33,720
 I left one of my pages at home, so I'm sorry.

52
00:02:33,720 --> 00:02:36,760
 The burden of proof, is that over with or is that?

53
00:02:36,760 --> 00:02:39,020
 >> The council did not accept that amendment.

54
00:02:39,020 --> 00:02:41,460
 There's nothing that prohibits the board

55
00:02:41,460 --> 00:02:42,900
 from bringing a similar amendment

56
00:02:42,900 --> 00:02:45,900
 to the city council at a different, a later time.

57
00:02:45,900 --> 00:02:49,180
 But there were four votes, and so for now, it's --

58
00:02:49,180 --> 00:02:51,140
 >> Well, it was presented to the city council.

59
00:02:51,140 --> 00:02:53,380
 >> They really didn't even talk about it.

60
00:02:53,380 --> 00:02:57,540
 They talked about other things instead, so.

61
00:02:57,540 --> 00:02:59,620
 They kind of talked about it, but --

62
00:02:59,620 --> 00:03:01,820
 >> I don't believe they actually took a vote.

63
00:03:01,820 --> 00:03:04,360
 >> Well, they're not allowed to vote during work session.

64
00:03:04,360 --> 00:03:06,620
 They give direction, so they did not give direction

65
00:03:06,620 --> 00:03:10,300
 to move forward with that proposed change.

66
00:03:10,300 --> 00:03:12,460
 >> So four head nods is still on our agenda.

67
00:03:12,460 --> 00:03:14,440
 At some point then, we can still --

68
00:03:14,440 --> 00:03:16,740
 >> I believe that one of the council members said,

69
00:03:16,740 --> 00:03:19,200
 "Bring us back something better,"

70
00:03:19,200 --> 00:03:22,980
 but I was not clear what he said.

71
00:03:22,980 --> 00:03:26,820
 What he meant by that, and there's no clarification here.

72
00:03:26,820 --> 00:03:29,820
 >> There is concern from the council during the discussion

73
00:03:29,820 --> 00:03:34,480
 on that item about the process being able

74
00:03:34,480 --> 00:03:39,560
 to be used inappropriately, essentially.

75
00:03:39,560 --> 00:03:42,600
 >> Which has happened, but I thought we had kind

76
00:03:42,600 --> 00:03:46,040
 of cleared that up.

77
00:03:46,040 --> 00:03:47,240
 >> Well, then, just a quick follow-up.

78
00:03:47,240 --> 00:03:51,940
 Then, now or later, is there a future meeting scheduled

79
00:03:51,940 --> 00:03:55,140
 with council yet to discuss this, or is that so far

80
00:03:55,140 --> 00:03:57,580
 into the future that we can't -- do you know?

81
00:03:57,580 --> 00:04:00,020
 >> We -- tonight, I was hoping that we could talk

82
00:04:00,020 --> 00:04:03,080
 about what our options are, and what are the best ways

83
00:04:03,080 --> 00:04:06,320
 of moving forward, so that's --

84
00:04:06,320 --> 00:04:07,760
 >> So they've not scheduled anything

85
00:04:07,760 --> 00:04:10,660
 to follow up on what you -- okay.

86
00:04:10,660 --> 00:04:14,600
 >> The only thing that -- and it's not currently scheduled.

87
00:04:14,600 --> 00:04:19,740
 They gave direction to accept your amendment

88
00:04:19,740 --> 00:04:21,780
 to change the definition of relative, so I'm working

89
00:04:21,780 --> 00:04:24,000
 on drafting that language so that it will go before them

90
00:04:24,000 --> 00:04:28,580
 for adoption during a future meeting.

91
00:04:28,580 --> 00:04:31,720
 >> But they did not remove the pending matter

92
00:04:31,720 --> 00:04:33,280
 from the conflict of interest,

93
00:04:33,280 --> 00:04:42,920
 and they did not give any direction related about the --

94
00:04:42,920 --> 00:04:46,460
 instead they got very concerned about campaign donations,

95
00:04:46,460 --> 00:04:48,640
 which wasn't even on the agenda.

96
00:04:48,640 --> 00:04:52,800
 >> Yeah. So just time, generally,

97
00:04:52,800 --> 00:04:55,540
 are we talking later this summer, fall, or later,

98
00:04:55,540 --> 00:04:58,480
 or is there any -- I mean, I know they're awful busy,

99
00:04:58,480 --> 00:05:00,580
 and I know you are, too.

100
00:05:00,580 --> 00:05:03,240
 >> My understanding of the current work session matrix is

101
00:05:03,240 --> 00:05:05,720
 the earliest we could get on would be the fall, currently,

102
00:05:05,720 --> 00:05:08,820
 if we wanted to try to have something ready by then.

103
00:05:08,820 --> 00:05:09,260
 >> Okay.

104
00:05:09,260 --> 00:05:11,320
 >> For another discussion.

105
00:05:11,320 --> 00:05:18,160
 >> Any other questions before we --

106
00:05:18,160 --> 00:05:22,100
 so we have a speaker here, and it is our mentor,

107
00:05:22,100 --> 00:05:24,900
 and I believe she has four minutes.

108
00:05:24,900 --> 00:05:26,040
 >> It's three.

109
00:05:26,040 --> 00:05:26,800
 >> She has three.

110
00:05:26,800 --> 00:05:31,640
 Okay. And she's a former council person.

111
00:05:31,640 --> 00:05:34,980
 It was on the council when this code was passed,

112
00:05:34,980 --> 00:05:39,340
 so I'm interested in hearing what she has to say.

113
00:05:39,340 --> 00:05:46,360
 >> Hi. My name is Debra Armentar,

114
00:05:46,360 --> 00:05:50,060
 and my address is 2003, Mr. Blaine.

115
00:05:50,060 --> 00:05:56,500
 I wanted to thank this board

116
00:05:56,500 --> 00:06:03,740
 for the very reasonable recommendations that you made

117
00:06:03,740 --> 00:06:06,740
 to the city council on conflict of interest

118
00:06:06,740 --> 00:06:10,740
 and burden of proof.

119
00:06:10,740 --> 00:06:16,280
 As Vanetta mentioned, I'm a former city council member,

120
00:06:16,280 --> 00:06:20,760
 so I've been on that side of dais,

121
00:06:20,760 --> 00:06:25,660
 and I don't pretend to be perfect,

122
00:06:25,660 --> 00:06:29,640
 but even from that side of the dais, my rule was

123
00:06:29,640 --> 00:06:33,100
 to always regard questions of ethics ordinance,

124
00:06:33,100 --> 00:06:35,580
 not from my point of view, but from the point

125
00:06:35,580 --> 00:06:38,180
 of view of the public who I serve.

126
00:06:38,180 --> 00:06:46,040
 In fact, that is the whole -- or should be the guiding rationale

127
00:06:46,040 --> 00:06:49,480
 behind every decision regarding an ethics ordinance.

128
00:06:49,480 --> 00:06:54,360
 So it is -- it was very sad and frustrating for me to see

129
00:06:54,360 --> 00:06:59,760
 after all of your good work and your just very sensible

130
00:06:59,760 --> 00:07:10,780
 and standard recommendations to see the obliquely expressed

131
00:07:10,780 --> 00:07:14,840
 objections expressed in the form of, you know,

132
00:07:14,840 --> 00:07:18,520
 this could be difficult for council members

133
00:07:18,520 --> 00:07:19,620
 or for city officials.

134
00:07:19,620 --> 00:07:22,720
 This could be uncomfortable for city officials.

135
00:07:22,720 --> 00:07:29,200
 So that was really disappointing to me.

136
00:07:29,200 --> 00:07:32,320
 I don't know how helpful it is for you to hear that.

137
00:07:32,320 --> 00:07:35,900
 I might just be preaching to the converted, but I do want you

138
00:07:35,900 --> 00:07:41,540
 to know that your work is really appreciated by me,

139
00:07:41,540 --> 00:07:45,900
 and there are people watching, even though I know

140
00:07:45,900 --> 00:07:48,840
 that it probably feels like nobody's watching

141
00:07:48,840 --> 00:07:52,520
 and nobody appreciates -- it's very unglamorous work,

142
00:07:52,520 --> 00:07:55,120
 but it's extremely important work.

143
00:07:55,120 --> 00:07:57,760
 See how much more time do I have?

144
00:07:57,760 --> 00:07:58,920
 >> About 52 seconds.

145
00:07:58,920 --> 00:08:02,120
 >> Okay. In my last 52 seconds, I'll say, you know,

146
00:08:02,120 --> 00:08:05,160
 it's no secret that when I was on council, you know,

147
00:08:05,160 --> 00:08:09,560
 I believed and advocated for a repeal and replace

148
00:08:09,560 --> 00:08:11,240
 of the entire ethics ordinance.

149
00:08:11,240 --> 00:08:16,280
 To me, that was the easiest way to fix its many problems.

150
00:08:16,280 --> 00:08:19,480
 At that time, a council majority,

151
00:08:19,480 --> 00:08:21,380
 and I'm guessing still a council majority,

152
00:08:21,380 --> 00:08:23,520
 might be opposed to that.

153
00:08:23,520 --> 00:08:30,080
 I still think that that's the correct solution, but in lieu

154
00:08:30,080 --> 00:08:34,420
 of that, the next best thing to do is to try

155
00:08:34,420 --> 00:08:36,660
 to revise the ordinance to make it more

156
00:08:36,660 --> 00:08:40,240
 like a standard ethics ordinance.

157
00:08:40,240 --> 00:08:45,340
 We have, as the consultants once said about our ordinance,

158
00:08:45,340 --> 00:08:48,900
 a very unique ethics ordinance.

159
00:08:48,900 --> 00:08:52,820
 You may have even said the most unique you've ever seen.

160
00:08:52,820 --> 00:08:54,320
 Sometimes unique is good.

161
00:08:54,320 --> 00:08:56,380
 Yeah, in this case, it is not good.

162
00:08:56,380 --> 00:09:01,720
 We do not want to have a unique ethics ordinance.

163
00:09:01,720 --> 00:09:06,020
 We need to make it more like other ethics ordinances,

164
00:09:06,020 --> 00:09:08,520
 and that's what your recommendations did.

165
00:09:08,520 --> 00:09:13,800
 I hope that you continue pushing forward in the spirit

166
00:09:13,800 --> 00:09:18,200
 of these revisions, and I look forward to hearing,

167
00:09:18,200 --> 00:09:22,100
 and I'm sure other members of the public, too,

168
00:09:22,100 --> 00:09:27,880
 would like to hear from you what we can do to help y'all.

169
00:09:27,880 --> 00:09:30,420
 I wrote to council before the meeting,

170
00:09:30,420 --> 00:09:33,920
 asked them to take your recommendations,

171
00:09:33,920 --> 00:09:38,920
 and I got to thank you for your comments, and that was that.

172
00:09:38,920 --> 00:09:42,020
 So thank you so much.

173
00:09:42,020 --> 00:09:43,360
 >> Thank you.

174
00:09:48,460 --> 00:09:53,400
 >> Dr. Armentor, I have a blind question.

175
00:09:53,400 --> 00:09:55,580
 >> Sure, sure.

176
00:09:55,580 --> 00:10:01,080
 >> From your experience and what you know about city officials

177
00:10:01,080 --> 00:10:04,480
 and city government, what do you think is the best way forward

178
00:10:04,480 --> 00:10:09,880
 for us, because that's what I want to think about tonight?

179
00:10:09,880 --> 00:10:11,760
 >> That's a really good question.

180
00:10:11,760 --> 00:10:16,600
 I was asking you all that question.

181
00:10:16,600 --> 00:10:18,400
 I want to know, too.

182
00:10:18,400 --> 00:10:20,700
 I wish I knew.

183
00:10:20,700 --> 00:10:28,700
 I just have to be honest and say, you know, I don't know.

184
00:10:28,700 --> 00:10:32,540
 I think it depends on the council and the council members,

185
00:10:32,540 --> 00:10:44,220
 but I do know that presenting rational arguments

186
00:10:44,220 --> 00:10:47,260
 and explaining why they're correct

187
00:10:47,260 --> 00:10:51,160
 and why objections are wrong doesn't always work.

188
00:10:51,160 --> 00:10:52,960
 That's what should work, right?

189
00:10:52,960 --> 00:10:54,660
 Next time we'll come back and we'll explain this

190
00:10:54,660 --> 00:10:57,700
 and we'll explain that.

191
00:10:57,700 --> 00:11:00,540
 So I would be lying if I said, oh, well, just, you know,

192
00:11:00,540 --> 00:11:04,240
 make some more arguments, and that will definitely get them

193
00:11:04,240 --> 00:11:10,140
 to see what is good for Denton, not just the public,

194
00:11:10,140 --> 00:11:13,120
 but good for our government to avoid the appearance

195
00:11:13,120 --> 00:11:16,520
 of conflict of interest, which, again, is what it's all about,

196
00:11:16,520 --> 00:11:18,360
 as you all know, about avoiding the appearance

197
00:11:18,360 --> 00:11:19,320
 of conflict of interest.

198
00:11:19,320 --> 00:11:27,460
 It's not about pointing fingers and being suspicious

199
00:11:27,460 --> 00:11:32,100
 of everybody, it's about trust, the public trust.

200
00:11:32,100 --> 00:11:35,940
 So anyway, I'm really sorry I have a lousy answer

201
00:11:35,940 --> 00:11:37,180
 to that question.

202
00:11:37,180 --> 00:11:40,780
 I am wondering the same thing myself.

203
00:11:40,780 --> 00:11:42,020
 >> Do you have a question?

204
00:11:42,020 --> 00:11:43,740
 >> I don't have a question for Dr. Armitage.

205
00:11:43,740 --> 00:11:49,560
 I have a question for us, more for you than for anybody else.

206
00:11:49,560 --> 00:11:51,880
 >> Well, let me say, I'm assuming

207
00:11:51,880 --> 00:11:56,520
 that everybody has had a chance to look at the video.

208
00:11:56,520 --> 00:11:59,420
 Did you get to look at it?

209
00:11:59,420 --> 00:12:00,560
 >> I did not look at it, no.

210
00:12:00,560 --> 00:12:01,600
 >> Okay.

211
00:12:01,600 --> 00:12:03,160
 >> Which one, council?

212
00:12:03,160 --> 00:12:05,940
 >> The day we went to council and what they had to say.

213
00:12:05,940 --> 00:12:06,740
 >> The council video.

214
00:12:06,740 --> 00:12:07,040
 >> Right.

215
00:12:07,040 --> 00:12:07,740
 >> Yeah, okay.

216
00:12:07,740 --> 00:12:09,380
 >> So you did and you didn't.

217
00:12:09,380 --> 00:12:10,840
 What fill you in, Andrea?

218
00:12:10,840 --> 00:12:15,440
 >> My question is beyond that part.

219
00:12:15,440 --> 00:12:17,520
 Is there room for discussion at this point?

220
00:12:17,520 --> 00:12:18,380
 >> There will be.

221
00:12:18,380 --> 00:12:21,180
 What I wanted to do is kind of go around Robin

222
00:12:21,180 --> 00:12:23,080
 and just start with each person.

223
00:12:23,080 --> 00:12:26,520
 I wanted to ask Dustin first because he was actually

224
00:12:26,520 --> 00:12:29,560
 in the room and then we'll start with David

225
00:12:29,560 --> 00:12:31,560
 and we'll end up with you.

226
00:12:31,560 --> 00:12:35,000
 So each one of you will be able to tell us what you're thinking

227
00:12:35,000 --> 00:12:37,340
 about and what you think the options are.

228
00:12:37,340 --> 00:12:39,500
 So, Dustin.

229
00:12:39,500 --> 00:12:40,980
 >> I can start.

230
00:12:40,980 --> 00:12:45,840
 So I attended the work session and then a few days later,

231
00:12:45,840 --> 00:12:50,220
 I went back and watched the video of the work session to try

232
00:12:50,220 --> 00:12:54,720
 and make sure I understand how the discussion was going.

233
00:12:54,720 --> 00:12:57,320
 I'll start in general.

234
00:12:57,320 --> 00:13:00,820
 It sounded like from most of the discussion in the room

235
00:13:00,820 --> 00:13:07,800
 that there was concern about how this would affect their ability

236
00:13:07,800 --> 00:13:10,460
 to conduct business as council members.

237
00:13:10,460 --> 00:13:14,340
 Most of the criticisms of the language we used started

238
00:13:14,340 --> 00:13:19,080
 with a hypothetical of what if this happened

239
00:13:19,080 --> 00:13:22,480
 for someone coming into my business

240
00:13:22,480 --> 00:13:26,420
 and then they do some small amount of, we do some small amount

241
00:13:26,420 --> 00:13:29,160
 of work for this person and then they're going

242
00:13:29,160 --> 00:13:32,260
 to bring something before council later on

243
00:13:32,260 --> 00:13:34,320
 which would then be a pending matter.

244
00:13:34,320 --> 00:13:35,720
 So they were kind of focused

245
00:13:35,720 --> 00:13:38,600
 on the pending matter thing still even though some

246
00:13:38,600 --> 00:13:43,240
 of our proposed amendments addressed those concerns.

247
00:13:43,240 --> 00:13:47,500
 But the discussion was they were concerned

248
00:13:47,500 --> 00:13:50,400
 that this would be weaponized against them

249
00:13:50,400 --> 00:13:55,720
 so someone would intentionally, the word they used was gag them

250
00:13:55,720 --> 00:13:59,240
 for a period of two years on the council.

251
00:13:59,240 --> 00:14:02,720
 That is absolutely not what our intentions were

252
00:14:02,720 --> 00:14:06,760
 as a board I don't think would definitely wasn't mine.

253
00:14:06,760 --> 00:14:08,700
 I don't believe it was anybody else's.

254
00:14:08,700 --> 00:14:10,220
 >> There would be a way to, yeah.

255
00:14:10,220 --> 00:14:11,960
 >> We would put anything in there to do that.

256
00:14:11,960 --> 00:14:14,600
 >> That one of the sanctions would be considered.

257
00:14:14,600 --> 00:14:20,040
 >> We talked multiple times about the weaponization

258
00:14:20,040 --> 00:14:23,140
 of the ordinance in the past and it was interesting

259
00:14:23,140 --> 00:14:25,700
 because that was used in a different way

260
00:14:25,700 --> 00:14:28,780
 for the last ethics complaint that was heard by the board.

261
00:14:28,780 --> 00:14:32,680
 What they described in their hypothetical was intentionally

262
00:14:32,680 --> 00:14:40,560
 using this prior business against them to prevent them

263
00:14:40,560 --> 00:14:45,260
 from considering something before the council.

264
00:14:45,260 --> 00:14:49,000
 I understand that concept.

265
00:14:49,000 --> 00:14:54,240
 We had multiple discussions about dollar limits of, you know,

266
00:14:54,240 --> 00:14:58,380
 value of goods or services exchanged and we all agreed

267
00:14:58,380 --> 00:15:01,580
 in our multiple meetings that we had

268
00:15:01,580 --> 00:15:05,340
 that placing a dollar value on that would be very difficult

269
00:15:05,340 --> 00:15:09,820
 because a threshold value makes it a little bit harder

270
00:15:09,820 --> 00:15:14,080
 to exercise judgment as a board in reviewing some of these.

271
00:15:14,080 --> 00:15:22,520
 I found there were some concerns about reputational benefit

272
00:15:22,520 --> 00:15:25,960
 and the hypothetical in that case was if someone gets an award

273
00:15:25,960 --> 00:15:30,400
 from a non-profit entity would they have a conflict of interest

274
00:15:30,400 --> 00:15:33,000
 if they had business before the council?

275
00:15:33,000 --> 00:15:35,580
 What about having dinner at a restaurant?

276
00:15:35,580 --> 00:15:39,820
 What if someone that works there now has a matter before council

277
00:15:39,820 --> 00:15:43,520
 and then that series of hypotheticals ended

278
00:15:43,520 --> 00:15:46,880
 with the question of are there any attorneys on the board

279
00:15:46,880 --> 00:15:52,320
 of ethics which I found to be very frustrating.

280
00:15:52,320 --> 00:15:56,360
 A comment that sounded to me like a criticism

281
00:15:56,360 --> 00:15:59,460
 of the work that this board has done.

282
00:15:59,460 --> 00:16:11,080
 That was by council member Jester who I think, hopefully,

283
00:16:11,080 --> 00:16:14,920
 as a new council member she'll get to go

284
00:16:14,920 --> 00:16:18,560
 through the ethics training and familiarize herself

285
00:16:18,560 --> 00:16:21,660
 with our ethics ordinance, how it's written

286
00:16:21,660 --> 00:16:26,260
 and why we made our proposed amendments to the ordinance.

287
00:16:26,260 --> 00:16:30,460
 Council member Bird was very hopeful in trying

288
00:16:30,460 --> 00:16:40,740
 to maybe calm some of the concerns about the defensiveness

289
00:16:40,740 --> 00:16:44,380
 that I was hearing in the room and relay the story

290
00:16:44,380 --> 00:16:46,280
 about how she was a member of a non-profit

291
00:16:46,280 --> 00:16:49,140
 and they wanted to use a city facility.

292
00:16:49,140 --> 00:16:52,920
 She described coming before the board to get that review.

293
00:16:52,920 --> 00:16:56,860
 I guess in actuality I don't believe she came before the

294
00:16:56,860 --> 00:17:01,960
 board, I think she asked for a panel which she did not have

295
00:17:01,960 --> 00:17:06,960
 to attend, the only effort was send an email to Madison.

296
00:17:06,960 --> 00:17:09,900
 We convened a panel, we reviewed that and offered it.

297
00:17:09,900 --> 00:17:13,940
 So I think that was something that was very unclear

298
00:17:13,940 --> 00:17:15,400
 to some of the members of the council

299
00:17:15,400 --> 00:17:17,480
 that were very critical of our amendments

300
00:17:17,480 --> 00:17:22,840
 that this is not meant to be a burden for them.

301
00:17:22,840 --> 00:17:29,920
 The ethics ordinance is meant, as our speaker perfectly said,

302
00:17:29,920 --> 00:17:34,620
 this is to allow for some transparency

303
00:17:34,620 --> 00:17:36,060
 in our local government.

304
00:17:36,060 --> 00:17:39,900
 It's not meant to be a burden on them and I think the volunteers

305
00:17:39,900 --> 00:17:44,840
 on this board have tried to make that possible by clearing

306
00:17:44,840 --> 00:17:47,200
 up some of the things that are very confusing on this

307
00:17:47,200 --> 00:17:50,200
 so that it is easier for our officials who are subjected

308
00:17:50,200 --> 00:17:54,080
 to the ethics ordinance but also for the citizens

309
00:17:54,080 --> 00:17:57,640
 who would potentially file a complaint.

310
00:17:57,640 --> 00:17:59,740
 We've taken out or attempted

311
00:17:59,740 --> 00:18:02,460
 to remove the burden of proof section.

312
00:18:02,460 --> 00:18:06,260
 That was also rejected which I think after all

313
00:18:06,260 --> 00:18:08,820
 of our discussions and things that we talked about,

314
00:18:08,820 --> 00:18:12,000
 we all kind of agree that is,

315
00:18:12,000 --> 00:18:15,200
 that burden of proof is actually a burden on the citizens

316
00:18:15,200 --> 00:18:21,600
 who would like to -- yeah, it makes people not want

317
00:18:21,600 --> 00:18:26,680
 to submit an ethics complaint.

318
00:18:26,680 --> 00:18:30,520
 Council member Holland supported council member's gesture.

319
00:18:30,520 --> 00:18:33,480
 Council member Jester's comment on the concern

320
00:18:33,480 --> 00:18:36,180
 for gagging a council member for two years

321
00:18:36,180 --> 00:18:39,520
 and without offering any additional discussion

322
00:18:39,520 --> 00:18:45,700
 or recommendation said I am rejecting the amendment and I

323
00:18:45,700 --> 00:18:48,140
 believe that was all that he provided.

324
00:18:48,140 --> 00:18:55,700
 Council member Beck, he gave the direction

325
00:18:55,700 --> 00:18:58,880
 to do a wholesale replacement of the conflict of interest section

326
00:18:58,880 --> 00:19:02,320
 which is essentially what we tried to do by using language

327
00:19:02,320 --> 00:19:04,680
 out of the model code.

328
00:19:04,680 --> 00:19:11,020
 Probably council member -- I live in council member Beck's district.

329
00:19:11,020 --> 00:19:14,460
 Probably one of the most frustrating things that was said

330
00:19:14,460 --> 00:19:18,260
 in the meeting was that when he said they were overly tied

331
00:19:18,260 --> 00:19:21,740
 to wordsmithing rather than crafting.

332
00:19:21,740 --> 00:19:24,240
 >> Which is what we had to use up last time.

333
00:19:24,240 --> 00:19:30,340
 >> That was his quote, I don't think we did anything

334
00:19:30,340 --> 00:19:34,140
 in putting together the proposed amendments

335
00:19:34,140 --> 00:19:37,420
 that I would consider wordsmithing rather than crafting.

336
00:19:37,420 --> 00:19:39,580
 I think we tried to just clean up a lot of stuff

337
00:19:39,580 --> 00:19:45,360
 that didn't make sense, make this easier to apply

338
00:19:45,360 --> 00:19:49,560
 with a focus on transparency for our officials.

339
00:19:49,560 --> 00:19:54,960
 So I don't really know what to do with that is feedback.

340
00:19:54,960 --> 00:20:01,800
 If you would like to give us some guidance on how we can redo

341
00:20:01,800 --> 00:20:06,940
 that conflict of interest section without wordsmithing

342
00:20:06,940 --> 00:20:13,120
 and doing some more crafting, I would be very open to hear that.

343
00:20:13,120 --> 00:20:15,980
 He did say that we need specificity

344
00:20:15,980 --> 00:20:18,680
 on what is regular business.

345
00:20:18,680 --> 00:20:22,960
 I don't think we define that in the --

346
00:20:22,960 --> 00:20:24,860
 I don't think that's defined in the ordinance.

347
00:20:24,860 --> 00:20:31,640
 And I don't know that we want to do that.

348
00:20:31,640 --> 00:20:33,840
 I think we spend a lot of time trying

349
00:20:33,840 --> 00:20:41,280
 to decide what definition we want to put in for a reason.

350
00:20:41,280 --> 00:20:45,320
 One of the other questions Council Member McGee asked us

351
00:20:45,320 --> 00:20:50,780
 or asked Madison, I think, to define substantial.

352
00:20:50,780 --> 00:20:52,620
 And that was a question I thought we might get

353
00:20:52,620 --> 00:20:55,500
 because we intentionally did not define it.

354
00:20:55,500 --> 00:20:58,100
 We did that on purpose for the same reason.

355
00:20:58,100 --> 00:20:59,600
 We didn't define some of the other things.

356
00:20:59,600 --> 00:21:06,800
 We did it because we want to be able to use some judgment.

357
00:21:06,800 --> 00:21:11,500
 We want to be able to apply the ordinance fairly.

358
00:21:11,500 --> 00:21:14,380
 And I don't think that we want things

359
00:21:14,380 --> 00:21:18,220
 like what the hypothetical that Council Member Jester brought

360
00:21:18,220 --> 00:21:21,580
 up about someone doing a very small amount of business

361
00:21:21,580 --> 00:21:25,180
 with her firm just to gag her for a period of two years.

362
00:21:25,180 --> 00:21:28,800
 I think that is the entire point of not defining

363
00:21:28,800 --> 00:21:30,920
 that with a dollar amount.

364
00:21:30,920 --> 00:21:36,900
 The question was also asked is any goods

365
00:21:36,900 --> 00:21:41,000
 or service exchange a conflict of interest?

366
00:21:41,000 --> 00:21:42,700
 The answer to that is no.

367
00:21:42,700 --> 00:21:43,740
 I think we all know that.

368
00:21:43,740 --> 00:21:48,040
 I think that the discussion kind of veered off and let's talk more

369
00:21:48,040 --> 00:21:51,040
 about hypotheticals and not about the value

370
00:21:51,040 --> 00:21:57,860
 of these amendments that were before the board.

371
00:21:57,860 --> 00:22:00,960
 Mayor Esbeth did ask about personal benefit

372
00:22:00,960 --> 00:22:04,060
 and he had some concern on that, ambiguity of that,

373
00:22:04,060 --> 00:22:07,560
 and did ask about endorsing someone.

374
00:22:07,560 --> 00:22:11,800
 I believe he was talking about in a local race

375
00:22:11,800 --> 00:22:15,840
 if he could endorse someone since ratification

376
00:22:15,840 --> 00:22:19,680
 of election results would eventually be a pending matter.

377
00:22:19,680 --> 00:22:24,680
 So I think the idea is if he as a sitting council member,

378
00:22:24,680 --> 00:22:27,780
 as mayor, endorsed another candidate and in that,

379
00:22:27,780 --> 00:22:30,520
 when those election results came before council,

380
00:22:30,520 --> 00:22:32,520
 that becomes a pending matter and he was worried

381
00:22:32,520 --> 00:22:34,360
 that that would be a conflict of interest.

382
00:22:34,360 --> 00:22:37,960
 We had already addressed the pending matter issue

383
00:22:37,960 --> 00:22:40,200
 in the amendments we provided.

384
00:22:40,200 --> 00:22:42,040
 That was normally discussed.

385
00:22:42,040 --> 00:22:49,300
 But I understand that, but again, we have to,

386
00:22:49,300 --> 00:22:55,020
 we're trying to write a general ethics code for the city

387
00:22:55,020 --> 00:22:59,620
 and it's extremely difficult to address every one

388
00:22:59,620 --> 00:23:04,320
 of these hypotheticals and I felt like what was different

389
00:23:04,320 --> 00:23:08,760
 about these amendments that we sent to council for approval

390
00:23:08,760 --> 00:23:12,560
 compared to what we sent before is that we took out a lot

391
00:23:12,560 --> 00:23:21,200
 of things that made it so that we could exercise some

392
00:23:21,200 --> 00:23:25,440
 reasonable, fair judgment if there is a complaint

393
00:23:25,440 --> 00:23:30,580
 and we have put in some things that are intentionally meant

394
00:23:30,580 --> 00:23:36,360
 to not allow people to weaponize the ethics code for any purpose.

395
00:23:36,360 --> 00:23:40,320
 The only purpose of this is for transparency

396
00:23:40,320 --> 00:23:42,600
 and to protect the citizens.

397
00:23:42,600 --> 00:23:49,360
 I, in general, I will say that I was extremely discouraged

398
00:23:49,360 --> 00:23:53,380
 by the results of that work session.

399
00:23:53,380 --> 00:23:57,040
 I was discouraged by the comments that a lot

400
00:23:57,040 --> 00:24:08,360
 of the council members made and I am hopeful that we can come

401
00:24:08,360 --> 00:24:13,460
 up with something so that we can clean up some of the issues

402
00:24:13,460 --> 00:24:19,200
 in our ordinance and that we don't spend hours and hours

403
00:24:19,200 --> 00:24:22,940
 in this room trying to fix something that's broken only

404
00:24:22,940 --> 00:24:30,280
 to just have our recommendations almost completely ignored.

405
00:24:30,280 --> 00:24:33,680
 So those are my general comments.

406
00:24:33,680 --> 00:24:36,020
 I don't have a great plan.

407
00:24:36,020 --> 00:24:40,060
 >> Do you have a recommendation about what might be the best way forward?

408
00:24:40,060 --> 00:24:44,100
 >> So I think the best way forward is if we choose

409
00:24:44,100 --> 00:24:52,100
 to resubmit amendments on these same parts of the ordinance,

410
00:24:52,100 --> 00:24:56,540
 if we can, prior to that discussion in our meeting,

411
00:24:56,540 --> 00:25:01,680
 take their specific comments, there were some very,

412
00:25:01,680 --> 00:25:04,920
 there were very few specific comments that they made

413
00:25:04,920 --> 00:25:07,560
 that I think we can actually apply.

414
00:25:07,560 --> 00:25:13,060
 And some of the criticism, maybe we can, well,

415
00:25:13,060 --> 00:25:15,560
 I don't think we want to put it in the code things

416
00:25:15,560 --> 00:25:20,660
 like defining substantial and personal benefit in a different way.

417
00:25:20,660 --> 00:25:24,500
 I think that when we present it to them, we can tell them,

418
00:25:24,500 --> 00:25:28,880
 this is not defined purposefully because of this reason.

419
00:25:28,880 --> 00:25:34,140
 We have taken this language, not this wordsmith language

420
00:25:34,140 --> 00:25:38,480
 that we came up with in the meeting, we pulled this from the model code

421
00:25:38,480 --> 00:25:42,760
 and we can present it to them that way so that it is more clear to them

422
00:25:42,760 --> 00:25:47,100
 that we are not just making things up here.

423
00:25:47,100 --> 00:25:51,460
 We're trying to change, excuse me, change our ordinance

424
00:25:51,460 --> 00:25:59,200
 so that it is functional and so that we are not a very unique code.

425
00:25:59,200 --> 00:26:02,180
 We have something that we can actually do something with.

426
00:26:02,180 --> 00:26:11,380
 I've been on this board for like three years and in that time,

427
00:26:11,380 --> 00:26:17,520
 we've had one complaint that actually came before the board,

428
00:26:17,520 --> 00:26:22,300
 not a panel, but the actual board.

429
00:26:22,300 --> 00:26:27,800
 And that one complaint was found to be frivolous.

430
00:26:27,800 --> 00:26:34,900
 And either that means our council members, our city staff,

431
00:26:34,900 --> 00:26:42,520
 everyone who is subjected to the rules of this ordinance are doing a really good job

432
00:26:42,520 --> 00:26:46,020
 or no one wants to deal with this.

433
00:26:46,020 --> 00:26:55,420
 And I would hope it's the former, but I'm a little concerned it's more of the latter

434
00:26:55,420 --> 00:27:00,960
 and that this, I mean, you look at what we have right now

435
00:27:00,960 --> 00:27:09,000
 and it's very difficult to look at that and actually, as a citizen,

436
00:27:09,000 --> 00:27:11,540
 figure out how do you apply them.

437
00:27:11,540 --> 00:27:23,880
 And I really thought that what we had proposed was pushing it in the right direction,

438
00:27:23,880 --> 00:27:31,060
 but unfortunately the council members, most of them did not agree with that.

439
00:27:31,060 --> 00:27:35,860
 I would like to, sorry that was a very long one.

440
00:27:35,860 --> 00:27:40,660
 I think what we can do is if we can take those comments

441
00:27:40,660 --> 00:27:44,940
 and we can just clean up some of the language a little bit

442
00:27:44,940 --> 00:27:52,980
 and present to them almost something very similar that addresses their criticisms

443
00:27:52,980 --> 00:27:57,880
 because I don't think starting over or skipping over to some other section of the code

444
00:27:57,880 --> 00:28:02,780
 that is kind of screwed up that needs work is the right thing to do.

445
00:28:02,780 --> 00:28:09,520
 If we can't fix the conflict of interest section of an ethics code and get a council

446
00:28:09,520 --> 00:28:15,960
 to agree on that, then I don't know what we're doing in these meetings.

447
00:28:15,960 --> 00:28:23,440
 So, sorry for the long... -Thank you, Dustin. I appreciate your comments.

448
00:28:23,440 --> 00:28:26,040
 We'll move on to David Zoller.

449
00:28:26,040 --> 00:28:31,480
 -Well, Dustin, you've done a very excellent job of covering just about everything.

450
00:28:31,480 --> 00:28:34,580
 I was not here in the room, but I was watching on TV

451
00:28:34,580 --> 00:28:42,020
 and I watched the whole thing again this morning just to try and remember some of these things.

452
00:28:42,020 --> 00:28:49,300
 I think that one of the things that I've probably missed the first time,

453
00:28:49,300 --> 00:28:57,640
 the council of all of these have the greatest difficulty with the complex of interest A1D,

454
00:28:57,640 --> 00:29:02,440
 which is this is where all the lawyers and the clients come into play.

455
00:29:02,440 --> 00:29:04,320
 And I understand that completely.

456
00:29:04,320 --> 00:29:08,080
 And this, to be real honest, I hadn't thought a whole lot about that

457
00:29:08,080 --> 00:29:14,260
 because this model code, from my standpoint and from my years looking at this,

458
00:29:14,260 --> 00:29:18,960
 was pretty inclusive and it shouldn't raise a lot of eyebrows.

459
00:29:18,960 --> 00:29:23,400
 But obviously, with all due respect to the lawyers in the room,

460
00:29:23,400 --> 00:29:30,500
 obviously that raised some eyebrows when this client or substantial customer came in.

461
00:29:30,500 --> 00:29:36,040
 I don't know where we go from here, quite honestly, because my line in the sand,

462
00:29:36,040 --> 00:29:42,420
 I thought if anything should be easily dispatched, it would be this whole burden of proof

463
00:29:42,420 --> 00:29:47,560
 that took a code and weaponized it against citizens who might dare,

464
00:29:47,560 --> 00:29:52,100
 dare to file a complaint against something they've heard.

465
00:29:52,100 --> 00:30:03,740
 And so that to me was kind of my takeaway that if we can't repair or get rid of that burden of proof,

466
00:30:03,740 --> 00:30:08,900
 I don't know where we go from here and how we repair what's happened up to now.

467
00:30:08,900 --> 00:30:14,180
 There are model codes all over the United States and the state of Texas,

468
00:30:14,180 --> 00:30:20,060
 and I don't understand why we're at this point right now that we have to defend stuff

469
00:30:20,060 --> 00:30:23,320
 that is working everywhere else except debt.

470
00:30:23,320 --> 00:30:27,920
 And so this is my frustration too, listening to what was said.

471
00:30:27,920 --> 00:30:32,300
 I don't know where we go from here.

472
00:30:32,300 --> 00:30:35,460
 Ms. Armentor mentioned, you know, do you amend the current code,

473
00:30:35,460 --> 00:30:39,140
 or do you just tear this thing in half and start over and just go right back

474
00:30:39,140 --> 00:30:45,420
 to a universal model code that's working pretty much everywhere else in the state of Texas.

475
00:30:45,420 --> 00:30:49,980
 So I'm frankly, I don't know where we go from this point, but I do know just

476
00:30:49,980 --> 00:30:54,060
 from a personal standpoint, again, personal standpoint only,

477
00:30:54,060 --> 00:30:57,960
 if that burden of proof remains in this code, I'm done.

478
00:30:57,960 --> 00:31:02,980
 I want nothing to do with this moving forward.

479
00:31:02,980 --> 00:31:08,540
 If you can do to citizens who only, you know, this was passed, you know,

480
00:31:08,540 --> 00:31:13,500
 I mean seven years ago now, and the four criteria that were there,

481
00:31:13,500 --> 00:31:18,980
 and there's no point, you know, Madison had them in our notes for today,

482
00:31:18,980 --> 00:31:22,180
 without going over all those four criteria that should have been in the code,

483
00:31:22,180 --> 00:31:26,220
 I don't know where we go from here, you know.

484
00:31:26,220 --> 00:31:34,020
 So I'm very frustrated with where we're at and what we try to do.

485
00:31:34,020 --> 00:31:40,900
 We try to do nothing other than what is already working in cities all over the state of Texas.

486
00:31:40,900 --> 00:31:47,900
 And so there's nothing extreme here or, again, with the exception of this client

487
00:31:47,900 --> 00:31:53,900
 or substantial customer, this 1D, I understand where, for example,

488
00:31:53,900 --> 00:31:57,460
 where misgestures was coming from. I do understand that.

489
00:31:57,460 --> 00:32:02,660
 And that's going to change my perspective on this, on the entire conflict of interest.

490
00:32:02,660 --> 00:32:08,100
 I think that's still a lot of work that we can do there to make that right.

491
00:32:08,100 --> 00:32:11,660
 But for me, that burden of proof is a line in the sand.

492
00:32:11,660 --> 00:32:14,980
 And that's why there have been no complaints in the three years,

493
00:32:14,980 --> 00:32:17,780
 because the citizens in this town that I've talked to,

494
00:32:17,780 --> 00:32:21,980
 who know how long this arm and tour myself and other citizens,

495
00:32:21,980 --> 00:32:26,780
 they just said, "We're done. We want nothing to do. There are complaints."

496
00:32:26,780 --> 00:32:30,660
 And if nothing else, one thing that frustrates a lot of citizens

497
00:32:30,660 --> 00:32:33,180
 is that you can handle them differently.

498
00:32:33,180 --> 00:32:37,420
 If the complaint comes from a citizen, they've got to check all these boxes

499
00:32:37,420 --> 00:32:39,780
 and turn into an amateur prosecutor.

500
00:32:39,780 --> 00:32:45,020
 And now somebody on city staff can do it through picking up a telephone

501
00:32:45,020 --> 00:32:51,540
 and calling the other alternative route there for fraud, waste, and abuse hotline.

502
00:32:51,540 --> 00:32:57,980
 So the burden of proof to me is the deal breaker.

503
00:32:57,980 --> 00:33:06,340
 If we can't repair that or get rid of it, I think we're in trouble.

504
00:33:06,340 --> 00:33:13,260
 - Just to be clear, the fraud, waste, and abuse hotline is open to literally anybody.

505
00:33:13,260 --> 00:33:16,380
 But there's not a very clear procedure on what I am supposed to do

506
00:33:16,380 --> 00:33:24,580
 if we receive an ethics complaint through that hotline.

507
00:33:24,580 --> 00:33:29,300
 - So what's your thought about the best way to move forward?

508
00:33:29,300 --> 00:33:34,820
 - Well, that's why I was asking earlier, are we just at a time out here?

509
00:33:34,820 --> 00:33:39,660
 Or can we take this back?

510
00:33:39,660 --> 00:33:43,140
 I don't know actually how to do this other than one of the things

511
00:33:43,140 --> 00:33:50,420
 that I've been curious about is if we have someone in the state of Texas,

512
00:33:50,420 --> 00:33:59,100
 possibly in Denton, and Robert, I can't think of his name, Bob Bland from UNT,

513
00:33:59,100 --> 00:34:04,340
 now we have some professionals in Denton that might be able to help.

514
00:34:04,340 --> 00:34:08,180
 And I was asking or wondering, you know...

515
00:34:08,180 --> 00:34:13,060
 - Dr. Bland heads up the public policy department.

516
00:34:13,060 --> 00:34:17,020
 I forget what it's called, but basically it's public policy.

517
00:34:17,020 --> 00:34:24,780
 - Well, the point was that, you know, Alec Barquist stood up there for weeks on end

518
00:34:24,780 --> 00:34:30,260
 charging the city of Denton, and the end product is an ethics code

519
00:34:30,260 --> 00:34:33,900
 that embarrasses me and a lot of citizens in this town.

520
00:34:33,900 --> 00:34:37,980
 Do we have a budget at all?

521
00:34:37,980 --> 00:34:44,300
 I mean, other than Madison's well-qualified, do we have the ability to go out

522
00:34:44,300 --> 00:34:49,820
 and find someone that can speak for us and for what we're talking about,

523
00:34:49,820 --> 00:34:54,820
 trying to do here, and present the other side, not that you couldn't,

524
00:34:54,820 --> 00:35:00,020
 but I would not have wanted to be in your seat during that work session, frankly,

525
00:35:00,020 --> 00:35:02,540
 because that was just not fun.

526
00:35:02,540 --> 00:35:07,900
 - Yeah, I'm sorry to interrupt, I should have said Madison did an outstanding job here in the meeting,

527
00:35:07,900 --> 00:35:10,420
 so thanks for reprimanding us.

528
00:35:10,420 --> 00:35:12,420
 - Thank you.

529
00:35:12,420 --> 00:35:16,220
 - I've been in common on that for sure.

530
00:35:16,220 --> 00:35:20,780
 - So I know we don't have a budget beyond zero.

531
00:35:20,780 --> 00:35:22,380
 - We have $10,000.

532
00:35:22,380 --> 00:35:28,740
 Some of it has been used for outside consultants for the board of ethics.

533
00:35:28,740 --> 00:35:35,420
 We typically use that with the Borges firm when we have to process ethics complaints

534
00:35:35,420 --> 00:35:42,820
 or advisory opinions for the city council, because the city attorney's office refuses them.

535
00:35:42,820 --> 00:35:48,540
 So we would have to go through a procurement process, but we have some money available

536
00:35:48,540 --> 00:35:52,860
 if you would like to give direction to go that way.

537
00:35:52,860 --> 00:35:56,980
 - I would be very much in favor of that, not that we don't have many, many dedicated,

538
00:35:56,980 --> 00:36:03,060
 well-qualified people right here, but we need some help to have this city council

539
00:36:03,060 --> 00:36:09,540
 understand the difference between an ethics code and an ordinance,

540
00:36:09,540 --> 00:36:13,260
 and they're ordinance-driven, not code, they don't understand the difference

541
00:36:13,260 --> 00:36:18,100
 between an ethics code and an ordinance, and that's a fundamental problem,

542
00:36:18,100 --> 00:36:23,660
 not because we've got maybe too many lawyers on the council, I don't know,

543
00:36:23,660 --> 00:36:28,900
 but there's a fundamental misunderstanding about what an ethics code is and what it is not.

544
00:36:28,900 --> 00:36:36,020
 And that's what I think someone that would come in and help them understand

545
00:36:36,020 --> 00:36:40,820
 that you're not going to be able to have 92 bullet points up and down an ethics code

546
00:36:40,820 --> 00:36:44,620
 and cover every possible scenario where someone can step over the line.

547
00:36:44,620 --> 00:36:46,780
 That's not going to happen ever.

548
00:36:46,780 --> 00:36:52,900
 And if that's their goal, we're wasting time.

549
00:36:52,900 --> 00:37:10,340
 So, we're not the first city in the state of Texas that's just tried to pass an ethics code.

550
00:37:10,340 --> 00:37:17,420
 This has been done before, and this council is acting like this is the first time ever.

551
00:37:17,420 --> 00:37:26,180
 So, I don't know how to fix that or to get some help.

552
00:37:26,180 --> 00:37:31,620
 >> So, I agree with a lot of what I'm hearing.

553
00:37:31,620 --> 00:37:38,300
 I like the idea of maybe having some consultants come and speak to us

554
00:37:38,300 --> 00:37:47,420
 and then maybe help, maybe even for us or whatever, but to help us be able to present the idea

555
00:37:47,420 --> 00:37:54,380
 of an ethics code that is very non-controversial, which was what we were trying to do,

556
00:37:54,380 --> 00:38:02,220
 and reduce the fear level, because the fear level I saw was very up on the ceiling.

557
00:38:02,220 --> 00:38:06,820
 They're afraid we're out to get them, and quite the opposite, we're trying to protect them

558
00:38:06,820 --> 00:38:13,900
 from frivolous accusations at election time and other frivolous complaints.

559
00:38:13,900 --> 00:38:15,300
 And they're not believing that.

560
00:38:15,300 --> 00:38:16,980
 So, there's a problem there.

561
00:38:16,980 --> 00:38:19,460
 Why do they fear us?

562
00:38:19,460 --> 00:38:21,540
 And because that is not what we're trying to do.

563
00:38:21,540 --> 00:38:27,980
 We're trying to increase transparency, increase the ease of use and understanding of the ethics code.

564
00:38:27,980 --> 00:38:32,340
 We have an ethics code that is pretty generic that other cities use.

565
00:38:32,340 --> 00:38:35,380
 And so, something's not translating.

566
00:38:35,380 --> 00:38:37,260
 And so, that's my concern.

567
00:38:37,260 --> 00:38:40,700
 How can we have a better discussion with city council?

568
00:38:40,700 --> 00:38:46,140
 I don't know if it's ever allowed to have a work session instead of just presenting them

569
00:38:46,140 --> 00:38:49,620
 with some recommendations and then they voted up and down.

570
00:38:49,620 --> 00:38:53,100
 If we could have a work session where we all sit together and talk about it,

571
00:38:53,100 --> 00:38:56,220
 because it's not just about them telling us what they don't like.

572
00:38:56,220 --> 00:38:57,940
 I'd love to hear what they do want.

573
00:38:57,940 --> 00:39:02,100
 You know, I'd like to hear what would you like to see.

574
00:39:02,100 --> 00:39:06,700
 And so, you know, that would be helpful and I don't know if that's even allowed to do that.

575
00:39:06,700 --> 00:39:10,820
 Or if that's out of order to do something like that.

576
00:39:10,820 --> 00:39:14,220
 But I'd love to do anything we can do to reduce the fear level.

577
00:39:14,220 --> 00:39:16,140
 To show that we're an advisory board.

578
00:39:16,140 --> 00:39:17,100
 We have panels.

579
00:39:17,100 --> 00:39:22,740
 We have ways of buffering them from frivolous complaints.

580
00:39:22,740 --> 00:39:28,660
 They can come and ask a panel is, you know, is this going to be an ethics violation?

581
00:39:28,660 --> 00:39:33,380
 And I don't think that's a huge burden because it doesn't come up that often that there's,

582
00:39:33,380 --> 00:39:35,660
 you know, even a question about an ethics violation.

583
00:39:35,660 --> 00:39:38,260
 So I don't see it as a huge burden.

584
00:39:38,260 --> 00:39:43,980
 And I think we do need to address the concerns that the different council people brought up.

585
00:39:43,980 --> 00:39:49,420
 But maybe do it in a way that seems less scary to them.

586
00:39:49,420 --> 00:39:59,500
 And for example, the idea of, if I went to a grocery store and bought groceries and then

587
00:39:59,500 --> 00:40:03,180
 that grocery store wanted a zoning change, would I have to refuse myself?

588
00:40:03,180 --> 00:40:06,460
 And you think, oh no, that's, you know, that's silly.

589
00:40:06,460 --> 00:40:09,220
 But what if I bought something expensive like a car?

590
00:40:09,220 --> 00:40:12,700
 Would I have to recuse myself that that car dealership wanted a zoning change?

591
00:40:12,700 --> 00:40:13,940
 Not necessarily.

592
00:40:13,940 --> 00:40:14,580
 It wouldn't have to.

593
00:40:14,580 --> 00:40:18,980
 Just because a car is more expensive, it would be like if they gave you a car right before

594
00:40:18,980 --> 00:40:23,540
 the zoning change, or if the grocery store gave you a year's worth of free groceries,

595
00:40:23,540 --> 00:40:25,780
 then you might say, hey, this is a little shady.

596
00:40:25,780 --> 00:40:29,820
 But most of the time, these things that come up are not going to be ethics violations.

597
00:40:29,820 --> 00:40:31,180
 That's why you have a board.

598
00:40:31,180 --> 00:40:33,380
 And you have a board to say, hey, you're OK.

599
00:40:33,380 --> 00:40:34,260
 You're cool.

600
00:40:34,260 --> 00:40:34,900
 Don't worry about it.

601
00:40:34,900 --> 00:40:36,180
 It's like buying a shop and buying groceries.

602
00:40:36,180 --> 00:40:36,460
 Yeah.

603
00:40:36,460 --> 00:40:40,860
 And if there's anything to worry about, then you talk about it even before it gets to the

604
00:40:40,860 --> 00:40:43,540
 higher level of an actual hearing.

605
00:40:43,540 --> 00:40:51,060
 So I just wish we could figure out some way to reduce the misunderstandings of the fair.

606
00:40:51,060 --> 00:40:55,860
 The city council does occasionally have joint meetings with certain other committees or

607
00:40:55,860 --> 00:41:01,260
 other political bodies, like the independent school district and things like that.

608
00:41:01,260 --> 00:41:02,820
 So I can check in on that.

609
00:41:02,820 --> 00:41:07,900
 They have not had one with the board of ethics before.

610
00:41:07,900 --> 00:41:15,580
 I have to say, seeing what I saw at this last meeting, I would not be interested.

611
00:41:15,580 --> 00:41:19,460
 So Andrea, do you want to go before me, or should I--

612
00:41:19,460 --> 00:41:21,380
 That was actually exactly my question.

613
00:41:21,380 --> 00:41:23,020
 My original question was exactly that.

614
00:41:23,020 --> 00:41:28,340
 What request do we have in terms of communication with the board directly?

615
00:41:28,340 --> 00:41:33,260
 Because what I'm hearing, all of these things, if you remember now of our discussion, I was

616
00:41:33,260 --> 00:41:39,020
 very concerned about a very broad definition of things.

617
00:41:39,020 --> 00:41:43,540
 And I want to have you back here for a second, because it was actually you as the lawyer

618
00:41:43,540 --> 00:41:50,420
 who explained to us that substantial is often used in that vague of a sense in order to

619
00:41:50,420 --> 00:41:56,060
 be able to catch things that are of different value to different people that have different

620
00:41:56,060 --> 00:41:58,020
 meaning in different situations.

621
00:41:58,020 --> 00:42:07,300
 So I, personally, am very much, before we spend a ton of money on an expert, what request

622
00:42:07,300 --> 00:42:13,500
 do we have to actually communicate directly with the city council and actually give them

623
00:42:13,500 --> 00:42:14,620
 an understanding?

624
00:42:14,620 --> 00:42:19,780
 Because I also see exactly what was already mentioned, that a lot of these concerns really

625
00:42:19,780 --> 00:42:26,380
 reflect kind of a misunderstanding of what we are as a board.

626
00:42:26,380 --> 00:42:31,260
 Because it almost seems like they're afraid of being policed by us, whereas the ethicoats,

627
00:42:31,260 --> 00:42:36,220
 my understanding is it is so that you know what you should and shouldn't do and that

628
00:42:36,220 --> 00:42:43,500
 you actually reflect yourself as a city official and as a council member of what is appropriate

629
00:42:43,500 --> 00:42:52,180
 and what is not appropriate while you're holding you as a person and you as an elected official,

630
00:42:52,180 --> 00:42:54,940
 or as a hired person, as a representative of the city.

631
00:42:54,940 --> 00:43:01,060
 That is no different than I have had certain questions as an educator, like when it comes

632
00:43:01,060 --> 00:43:06,740
 to elections, I have had numerous conversations of am I allowed to do this as a teacher?

633
00:43:06,740 --> 00:43:11,300
 In what situation while I'm having children at this school, what am I allowed to say,

634
00:43:11,300 --> 00:43:12,300
 what am I not allowed to say?

635
00:43:12,300 --> 00:43:18,900
 When am I a parent, when am I an actual representative of the school district?

636
00:43:18,900 --> 00:43:24,860
 Those are all ethics questions that I really do think that city council is completely missing

637
00:43:24,860 --> 00:43:27,320
 and it more, yes.

638
00:43:27,320 --> 00:43:36,540
 So those are the big things for me in terms of, because really and truly the only chance

639
00:43:36,540 --> 00:43:44,060
 we have to get any other recommendations passed is if we create an understanding within the

640
00:43:44,060 --> 00:43:47,740
 city council of where our recommendations are coming from.

641
00:43:47,740 --> 00:43:53,940
 And that is something that I really do think goes beyond your role.

642
00:43:53,940 --> 00:44:01,940
 And I think that is where we as a board should actually put ourselves out there and say this

643
00:44:01,940 --> 00:44:04,180
 is why we're making these recommendations.

644
00:44:04,180 --> 00:44:05,180
 Thank you.

645
00:44:05,180 --> 00:44:13,980
 Yeah, but what's your thought on best way forward?

646
00:44:13,980 --> 00:44:20,460
 My best way forward is at this point we've had two rejections in terms of revising the

647
00:44:20,460 --> 00:44:21,460
 code.

648
00:44:21,460 --> 00:44:31,820
 One was about two years ago, right, after two years, and then we've had a lot of change

649
00:44:31,820 --> 00:44:37,140
 and we've recommended other changes, different changes and we were rejected again.

650
00:44:37,140 --> 00:44:42,580
 So in order for us to plug away and spend more time trying to figure out, which the

651
00:44:42,580 --> 00:44:51,660
 word smithing really hurts me because that's what we were trying, yes.

652
00:44:51,660 --> 00:44:58,080
 I really do, I really think that we need to be, we need to be, we need to take a different

653
00:44:58,080 --> 00:45:02,540
 approach than just presenting through Madison changes.

654
00:45:02,540 --> 00:45:11,260
 We need to figure out a way of actually educating the city council and having a conversation

655
00:45:11,260 --> 00:45:17,020
 with the city council so that, which what I don't understand is every single one of

656
00:45:17,020 --> 00:45:20,600
 us is appointed by a city council member.

657
00:45:20,600 --> 00:45:27,420
 So if they're appointing us to sit and confirmed by all of them, so if they're doing that and

658
00:45:27,420 --> 00:45:40,700
 we're sitting here based on their recommendation and their vote, why are we not trusted?

659
00:45:40,700 --> 00:45:44,340
 So my turn.

660
00:45:44,340 --> 00:45:48,540
 I want to say I've tried to go into this meeting really positively.

661
00:45:48,540 --> 00:45:53,420
 I felt like I was in a good frame of mind and I thought what happened last time was

662
00:45:53,420 --> 00:45:54,420
 terrible.

663
00:45:54,420 --> 00:45:55,420
 It can't be worse.

664
00:45:55,420 --> 00:45:56,420
 It was worse.

665
00:45:56,420 --> 00:46:08,220
 You know last time there were two people who were yelling and I think everybody else was

666
00:46:08,220 --> 00:46:13,700
 just kind of sitting there like quiet ducks sort of.

667
00:46:13,700 --> 00:46:17,860
 This time there was no decorum in the meeting.

668
00:46:17,860 --> 00:46:27,780
 They were off track and from the session before they were looking at some changes and it wasn't

669
00:46:27,780 --> 00:46:35,900
 being presented by a city staff member, it was being presented by an official with the

670
00:46:35,900 --> 00:46:42,060
 Chamber of Commerce and it was like thank you, that's wonderful, yay, yay, yay, good

671
00:46:42,060 --> 00:46:50,180
 job and then the minute our thing came up it was like a switch flipped and it was suddenly,

672
00:46:50,180 --> 00:47:01,340
 it was just crazy and there was no decorum and I can tell you how much I appreciate Scott

673
00:47:01,340 --> 00:47:07,740
 because he's explained a lot of things to me and he quietly tells me when we're getting

674
00:47:07,740 --> 00:47:12,300
 off track and I like to think that I respond and I listen.

675
00:47:12,300 --> 00:47:21,380
 I saw the same thing happening in this meeting, no response and finally I did and I will say

676
00:47:21,380 --> 00:47:32,180
 there were two council people sitting right there, Jester and Vicki Bird and they were

677
00:47:32,180 --> 00:47:37,380
 carrying on a very loud sidebar and it was loud enough that I couldn't hear what was

678
00:47:37,380 --> 00:47:39,420
 being said in the rest of the room.

679
00:47:39,420 --> 00:47:44,340
 I was sitting right there right behind them.

680
00:47:44,340 --> 00:47:51,620
 It was unacceptable and it was disrespectful to Madison, the constant comments and they

681
00:47:51,620 --> 00:47:59,420
 were both, well Jester was doing a lot of talking and I did not hear her listening and

682
00:47:59,420 --> 00:48:07,380
 so she's a new council person and she hadn't at that point had the ethics training.

683
00:48:07,380 --> 00:48:16,980
 I was offended, I felt disrespected, I felt very disrespected for Madison who always has

684
00:48:16,980 --> 00:48:23,580
 everything together and presents things very well and it was just like we were trying to

685
00:48:23,580 --> 00:48:32,020
 saw a fillet or something, it was really, really disrespectful.

686
00:48:32,020 --> 00:48:38,940
 I also feel like we have a couple lawyers on the council now who do not understand the

687
00:48:38,940 --> 00:48:40,900
 difference between law and ethics.

688
00:48:40,900 --> 00:48:47,820
 If you think about concentric circles there's a little bit of overlap, law is a set of rules

689
00:48:47,820 --> 00:48:54,300
 and ethics is more aspirational, they completely don't get it.

690
00:48:54,300 --> 00:49:02,220
 We're trying to bring people back in before they are in violation of state law but as

691
00:49:02,220 --> 00:49:10,100
 it stands our code is really weaker than state law so it's possible that someone could be

692
00:49:10,100 --> 00:49:16,420
 in violation of state law before they get found guilty of an ethics violation and that's

693
00:49:16,420 --> 00:49:23,620
 sad because if I had the choice between being charged with violation of law and ethics,

694
00:49:23,620 --> 00:49:28,980
 I'd prefer the ethical charge because that is meant to be a higher level and it's meant

695
00:49:28,980 --> 00:49:35,740
 to be more aspirational and you're really trying to guide people into better behavior

696
00:49:35,740 --> 00:49:43,080
 but I felt like they were telling us we were being mean to them.

697
00:49:43,080 --> 00:49:48,140
 Bottom line for me is I don't think they're listening to constituents.

698
00:49:48,140 --> 00:49:55,820
 What was lucked out of this whole thing that Borgquist recommended was to involve constituents,

699
00:49:55,820 --> 00:50:03,620
 voters in the code, that was, and I know that there's a council person who just rotated

700
00:50:03,620 --> 00:50:10,940
 off who thinks that they were involved but voters were not involved other than their

701
00:50:10,940 --> 00:50:18,900
 passage of the bond, there's never been a time when they really asked the voters what

702
00:50:18,900 --> 00:50:27,860
 they think about this and it's meant to engender trust, I don't think it does.

703
00:50:27,860 --> 00:50:36,420
 Also honestly council members should not be making decisions, so I'm reading from Weschler,

704
00:50:36,420 --> 00:50:42,880
 the fact that elected officials like to have a final say is in itself a conflict of interest

705
00:50:42,880 --> 00:50:47,580
 because it certainly is not in the public interest to give them this final say.

706
00:50:47,580 --> 00:50:52,820
 The more independent the ethics commission, the more it will be trusted by city residents,

707
00:50:52,820 --> 00:50:59,700
 the less it will be used for political purposes and the more respect its decisions will be

708
00:50:59,700 --> 00:51:00,700
 given.

709
00:51:00,700 --> 00:51:07,540
 If the ethics system is not perceived as independent and ethics accusations are politicized, the

710
00:51:07,540 --> 00:51:14,380
 ethics system can actually undermine the very confidence in government it is supposed to

711
00:51:14,380 --> 00:51:15,380
 protect.

712
00:51:15,380 --> 00:51:24,580
 So one option is, and Weschler actually says this at one point in his 1300 pages of writing,

713
00:51:24,580 --> 00:51:30,980
 he says that some cities are better off without an ethics code, I think that's a possibility

714
00:51:30,980 --> 00:51:37,500
 that we need to tell council, look, we don't have a viable code, all you can do really

715
00:51:37,500 --> 00:51:46,620
 is beat up your political opponents with it, it's not a good code, but just don't even

716
00:51:46,620 --> 00:51:48,660
 try to say we have one.

717
00:51:48,660 --> 00:51:59,460
 Another question for Madison, has the current council, it's my understanding there's supposed

718
00:51:59,460 --> 00:52:07,740
 to be some annual ethics training, do you do that yourself or how does, well for example

719
00:52:07,740 --> 00:52:15,820
 the reason I ask that is during this meeting I heard a council member claim that, well

720
00:52:15,820 --> 00:52:20,940
 you could, citizens could just keep bringing up the same complaint over and over again,

721
00:52:20,940 --> 00:52:28,620
 well no they can't, because they can be sanctioned, and so it showed me that there's maybe some

722
00:52:28,620 --> 00:52:32,100
 folks on this council that really don't understand.

723
00:52:32,100 --> 00:52:38,860
 Yes, the ethics training for the city council happened about a week and a half after the

724
00:52:38,860 --> 00:52:39,860
 presentation.

725
00:52:39,860 --> 00:52:44,700
 So all council members have currently been through training?

726
00:52:44,700 --> 00:52:48,940
 They received it on June 22nd I believe.

727
00:52:48,940 --> 00:52:55,540
 Well for example that was just a factually, just an erroneous statement that I heard from

728
00:52:55,540 --> 00:53:04,020
 doesn't matter who, but so they're living in some other world that is not relevant in

729
00:53:04,020 --> 00:53:09,900
 terms of an actual ethics code, you know, he can keep bringing up the same complaint

730
00:53:09,900 --> 00:53:12,460
 over and over and over, no he can't.

731
00:53:12,460 --> 00:53:17,860
 I felt like the decision had been made before we even made the presentation, did you get

732
00:53:17,860 --> 00:53:18,860
 that sense?

733
00:53:18,860 --> 00:53:19,860
 Yes.

734
00:53:19,860 --> 00:53:29,820
 Anybody else, did anybody get a different perspective of that, because I felt like they

735
00:53:29,820 --> 00:53:30,820
 had already decided, no.

736
00:53:30,820 --> 00:53:35,140
 And you know having, the last time we brought, yeah we brought a bunch of little nitpicky

737
00:53:35,140 --> 00:53:41,020
 things to council, I don't think they understood them, they approved a couple of them, they

738
00:53:41,020 --> 00:53:43,500
 left most of them on the table.

739
00:53:43,500 --> 00:53:51,140
 So this time we came back with these are too big, and they were off track the entire presentation.

740
00:53:51,140 --> 00:53:55,900
 They were looking at other parts of the code, their discussion of either of the points we

741
00:53:55,900 --> 00:54:02,540
 were trying to make was very very minimal at best, and I kind of feel like the wording

742
00:54:02,540 --> 00:54:12,100
 change of getting rid of the consequency definition was kind of like, here's a bone, thanks.

743
00:54:12,100 --> 00:54:18,900
 I was kind of wanting a filet or something, yeah.

744
00:54:18,900 --> 00:54:25,660
 Well it seems rather simplistic, but to go to the council and say okay San Marcos has

745
00:54:25,660 --> 00:54:31,140
 a very effective code, El Paso has a very very effective code, Fort Worth, pick one.

746
00:54:31,140 --> 00:54:32,140
 San Antonio.

747
00:54:32,140 --> 00:54:33,140
 San Antonio.

748
00:54:33,140 --> 00:54:38,740
 If you don't like what we're proposing, then you go find a code that you like, and we'll

749
00:54:38,740 --> 00:54:44,380
 see if we can adapt it to them, but trying to reinvent the wheel when it's been done

750
00:54:44,380 --> 00:54:47,940
 all over the state of Texas, I don't understand that.

751
00:54:47,940 --> 00:54:49,580
 We're not trying to invent something.

752
00:54:49,580 --> 00:54:54,580
 I feel like that's a large part of what we did, what we proposed to them.

753
00:54:54,580 --> 00:54:59,700
 We didn't take necessarily San Marcos or San Antonio, but we took language directly from

754
00:54:59,700 --> 00:55:02,660
 the model code and presented that.

755
00:55:02,660 --> 00:55:06,860
 And since then, they wrote the code in the first place, so they presented, they came

756
00:55:06,860 --> 00:55:14,580
 up with the code in the first place, my understanding is, okay so that code was brought up in 2012,

757
00:55:14,580 --> 00:55:16,420
 is that correct?

758
00:55:16,420 --> 00:55:21,420
 And so instead of us just asking over and over again do you like this, do you like that,

759
00:55:21,420 --> 00:55:26,940
 I would like for them to say this is what we like, and then we can discuss and say yeah

760
00:55:26,940 --> 00:55:31,300
 that sounds good or oh no there's some things that we don't think will work, but they haven't

761
00:55:31,300 --> 00:55:37,580
 told us anything what they want, they just say what they don't want.

762
00:55:37,580 --> 00:55:44,780
 I understand what you're saying, I think, I'm thinking about what Annetta read, and they

763
00:55:44,780 --> 00:55:48,380
 should not be dictating to us what is in our code.

764
00:55:48,380 --> 00:55:50,420
 No, but I mean that is the situation though, we can't change that.

765
00:55:50,420 --> 00:55:52,460
 But I mean we didn't go back to them and present.

766
00:55:52,460 --> 00:55:57,860
 We really don't like it, I think we probably, I mean one thing we might send a letter and

767
00:55:57,860 --> 00:56:04,900
 say you're not involving the people who need to trust you, you're not listening to your

768
00:56:04,900 --> 00:56:09,660
 constituents, you don't know who they're listening to, I don't really care actually.

769
00:56:09,660 --> 00:56:24,300
 I think there needs to be, their decorum was frustrating and that's the nicest word I can

770
00:56:24,300 --> 00:56:25,300
 think of.

771
00:56:25,300 --> 00:56:33,220
 Question for city legal, being a quote unquote quasi judicial governing body, does that give

772
00:56:33,220 --> 00:56:40,860
 us any special avenues to fix what we're talking about here and being a quote unquote judicial

773
00:56:40,860 --> 00:56:47,560
 just imposes additional restrictions on how you hold your meeting?

774
00:56:47,560 --> 00:56:55,260
 So here's the things we've talked about, have a joint meeting, revise what we have and go

775
00:56:55,260 --> 00:57:03,780
 back and talk to them, a consultant, recommend another code, recommend no code, or maybe

776
00:57:03,780 --> 00:57:08,900
 an open letter, those are the things that I have.

777
00:57:08,900 --> 00:57:09,900
 So what?

778
00:57:09,900 --> 00:57:17,020
 I'll say my preference, my preference would be to take our proposed amendments, make modifications

779
00:57:17,020 --> 00:57:22,500
 to those proposed amendments to address the very few specific things that they had concerns

780
00:57:22,500 --> 00:57:29,980
 about, where it makes sense and to not address them where it does not make sense, because

781
00:57:29,980 --> 00:57:35,900
 we have spent many hours trying to answer a lot of these questions, if we need to add

782
00:57:35,900 --> 00:57:45,060
 a definition here or make a change to that 273A1D, that section they had concerns about,

783
00:57:45,060 --> 00:57:48,960
 that's fine, I mean if we need to change that because there are things that we need to consider.

784
00:57:48,960 --> 00:57:53,100
 Because I was looking at it and thinking, why do these next three little paragraphs

785
00:57:53,100 --> 00:57:54,100
 even exist?

786
00:57:54,100 --> 00:58:00,420
 I mean, let's just make it, but I think where it got off the rails was that we put the whole

787
00:58:00,420 --> 00:58:05,020
 code in the back up and then they start wandering around and we've been telling you the whole

788
00:58:05,020 --> 00:58:06,180
 thing's broken.

789
00:58:06,180 --> 00:58:13,220
 I think that, I don't want to start over from scratch looking at a different section or

790
00:58:13,220 --> 00:58:18,340
 trying to find a totally new code and push that across, it's not going to work.

791
00:58:18,340 --> 00:58:22,780
 I would like to take the hard work we've already done, clean up the things they had comments

792
00:58:22,780 --> 00:58:28,260
 about and give it back to them and then they can tell us again why they think we don't

793
00:58:28,260 --> 00:58:29,260
 know what we're doing.

794
00:58:29,260 --> 00:58:32,900
 And if they do that, then that's fine.

795
00:58:32,900 --> 00:58:45,180
 I think at some point, hopefully, people that actually vote will start to see this and say,

796
00:58:45,180 --> 00:58:49,140
 we can't even get these people to agree to an ethics ordinance here.

797
00:58:49,140 --> 00:58:54,900
 How can we expect them to conduct business in a way that's for all the citizens?

798
00:58:54,900 --> 00:59:01,180
 I don't know how to make that happen other than if we continue to push them to do what

799
00:59:01,180 --> 00:59:07,140
 we think is right after hours and hours of discussion and research and trying to fix

800
00:59:07,140 --> 00:59:12,660
 the problems we have, they can either accept it or reject it and then like all people in

801
00:59:12,660 --> 00:59:18,420
 elected positions, they're going to have to face the consequences for those decisions

802
00:59:18,420 --> 00:59:20,260
 and they're going to have to explain themselves.

803
00:59:20,260 --> 00:59:26,380
 Maybe simply the people who voted for them care about those things.

804
00:59:26,380 --> 00:59:30,420
 And I hate to worry about this burden of proof thing, but make it very clear to those same

805
00:59:30,420 --> 00:59:37,180
 people that as it is right now, this code has been weaponized against you as a citizen.

806
00:59:37,180 --> 00:59:49,340
 And if you're okay with that, then live with it, because I'm going, but . . .

807
00:59:49,340 --> 00:59:59,020
 Okay, what other . . . Andrea, what do you think?

808
00:59:59,020 --> 01:00:06,780
 I mean, I'm willing to make tweaks and re-present it, but I think without a direct or an open

809
01:00:06,780 --> 01:00:11,820
 letter, some kind of communication of what the rationale and reasoning behind it is and

810
01:00:11,820 --> 01:00:16,780
 for really explaining what, why we're doing certain things, I really don't think we're

811
01:00:16,780 --> 01:00:19,180
 going to get any other outcome.

812
01:00:19,180 --> 01:00:23,220
 That's my . . . I mean, the work I don't have a problem putting in, especially when we're

813
01:00:23,220 --> 01:00:26,940
 saying let's take these recommendations, see how they make sense.

814
01:00:26,940 --> 01:00:30,700
 That's absolutely, but I think if we're just presenting it the way we have been presenting

815
01:00:30,700 --> 01:00:33,020
 it, the outcome is going to be the same.

816
01:00:33,020 --> 01:00:39,180
 I don't think that there's any kind of convincing otherwise, unless there is a rethinking of

817
01:00:39,180 --> 01:00:44,500
 what our goals are and how those things are addressed.

818
01:00:44,500 --> 01:00:46,500
 So, Patricia.

819
01:00:46,500 --> 01:00:54,460
 I'm more in favor of having some kind of group meeting face-to-face, our council with City

820
01:00:54,460 --> 01:01:03,380
 Council, because I have a fear that if we try to tweak things, then it'll just . . . like

821
01:01:03,380 --> 01:01:08,180
 Andrea said, that it will just be shot down again without much thought put into it.

822
01:01:08,180 --> 01:01:15,860
 So, it's kind of a waste of their time, and our time especially, but I think if it's a

823
01:01:15,860 --> 01:01:20,820
 frank face-to-face discussion, what are you wanting?

824
01:01:20,820 --> 01:01:21,820
 What's wrong with this?

825
01:01:21,820 --> 01:01:22,820
 What would you suggest instead?

826
01:01:22,820 --> 01:01:29,340
 You know, a real discussion, I think, would make more progress.

827
01:01:29,340 --> 01:01:30,340
 Okay.

828
01:01:30,340 --> 01:01:34,740
 David, what do you think?

829
01:01:34,740 --> 01:01:39,700
 I am ready and willing to jump into this conflict of interest again.

830
01:01:39,700 --> 01:01:44,860
 I'm okay with the fact that that couldn't be cleaned up a little bit, but again, my

831
01:01:44,860 --> 01:01:49,140
 line in the sand is this burden to prove, totally.

832
01:01:49,140 --> 01:01:55,540
 I think the two recommendations we made were the most appropriate ones, the stuff about

833
01:01:55,540 --> 01:02:01,820
 whether or not you have a $200 political contribution that we weren't . . . that wasn't even on

834
01:02:01,820 --> 01:02:02,820
 the agenda.

835
01:02:02,820 --> 01:02:03,820
 That was frustrating to me.

836
01:02:03,820 --> 01:02:04,820
 Whose job would it have been to bring that in?

837
01:02:04,820 --> 01:02:05,820
 To not allow that?

838
01:02:05,820 --> 01:02:06,820
 It just wasn't on the agenda.

839
01:02:06,820 --> 01:02:07,820
 Yes.

840
01:02:07,820 --> 01:02:08,820
 I mean, is there somebody to say that we're not voting on that right now?

841
01:02:08,820 --> 01:02:09,820
 They were off-topic.

842
01:02:09,820 --> 01:02:10,820
 They were off-topic.

843
01:02:10,820 --> 01:02:22,220
 Almost the whole time they were talking about it.

844
01:02:22,220 --> 01:02:27,500
 But who would bring that up, that it's off-topic?

845
01:02:27,500 --> 01:02:35,060
 I think I saw the attorney trying to get it back on track, because I finally saw him go

846
01:02:35,060 --> 01:02:36,060
 . . .

847
01:02:36,060 --> 01:02:37,060
 Because it's, you know, we could discuss it at some point, but it wasn't . . .

848
01:02:37,060 --> 01:02:42,060
 I finally saw him say, "Well, it's your meeting to run," and at that point, that's when we

849
01:02:42,060 --> 01:02:43,060
 got the very little change that we did get.

850
01:02:43,060 --> 01:02:44,060
 But there was no attempt to . . . Personally, I think a couple people should have been rolled

851
01:02:44,060 --> 01:02:45,060
 out of order.

852
01:02:45,060 --> 01:02:46,060
 I think that they were . . .

853
01:02:46,060 --> 01:02:47,060
 Who does it, the attorney or the mayor?

854
01:02:47,060 --> 01:02:48,060
 The mayor.

855
01:02:48,060 --> 01:02:49,060
 The chair of the meeting.

856
01:02:49,060 --> 01:03:12,380
 It was . . . I think the thing that made me maddest is that we try really hard to follow

857
01:03:12,380 --> 01:03:26,860
 the rules, and the city council isn't even following the rules that they have set for

858
01:03:26,860 --> 01:03:27,860
 us.

859
01:03:27,860 --> 01:03:28,860
 That's poor leadership.

860
01:03:28,860 --> 01:03:31,860
 I like to think that I listen when I get told, "Hey, you're off-topic."

861
01:03:31,860 --> 01:03:38,660
 I'm pretty sure I saw the city, and I couldn't hear what he was saying, because the distractions

862
01:03:38,660 --> 01:03:40,140
 over here were so loud.

863
01:03:40,140 --> 01:03:46,020
 I couldn't even hear, "Madison, I couldn't even hear your presentation at points," because

864
01:03:46,020 --> 01:03:55,240
 it was a constant chatter and joking, and, you know, "You should wait to be recognized."

865
01:03:55,240 --> 01:03:57,260
 That wasn't happening.

866
01:03:57,260 --> 01:04:02,820
 I thought you and Madison did an excellent job during that whole session.

867
01:04:02,820 --> 01:04:03,820
 I really do.

868
01:04:03,820 --> 01:04:11,780
 I think Madison always does a great job, and I am so grateful to have Scott here, because

869
01:04:11,780 --> 01:04:18,960
 he rolls me in, in a good way, and he's quiet about how he does it.

870
01:04:18,960 --> 01:04:23,620
 I expect the same thing from the city council, and I was disappointed, because I did not

871
01:04:23,620 --> 01:04:24,620
 see it.

872
01:04:24,620 --> 01:04:33,020
 It was like a circus atmosphere, just, you know, everybody was talking, there was no . . .

873
01:04:33,020 --> 01:04:35,700
 There was absolutely zero decorum.

874
01:04:35,700 --> 01:04:36,700
 Zero.

875
01:04:36,700 --> 01:04:43,260
 That's why you have Robert's Rules of Order, and then we follow it kind of loosely, but . . .

876
01:04:43,260 --> 01:04:47,820
 Which might give you an indication of how seriously they consider the ethics ordinance

877
01:04:47,820 --> 01:04:49,380
 anyway, in the first place.

878
01:04:49,380 --> 01:04:50,380
 Yeah.

879
01:04:50,380 --> 01:04:57,940
 I had to wonder if it wasn't, like, well, it's . . . For things that they agree with,

880
01:04:57,940 --> 01:05:04,820
 there is decorum, but if there's . . . Yeah.

881
01:05:04,820 --> 01:05:12,500
 So Scott, I have a question for you, if I don't want to, if that's okay.

882
01:05:12,500 --> 01:05:16,920
 What is our limitation on . . . Like, because, I mean, this is all public record.

883
01:05:16,920 --> 01:05:20,180
 The work session is public record.

884
01:05:20,180 --> 01:05:25,620
 What is our limitation as board members to approach a city council member about our discussions,

885
01:05:25,620 --> 01:05:28,620
 because I mean . . . We could do that.

886
01:05:28,620 --> 01:05:29,620
 Yeah.

887
01:05:29,620 --> 01:05:30,620
 There's not a limitation.

888
01:05:30,620 --> 01:05:31,620
 No.

889
01:05:31,620 --> 01:05:32,620
 Just not as a group.

890
01:05:32,620 --> 01:05:33,620
 Not as a group.

891
01:05:33,620 --> 01:05:34,620
 As a board.

892
01:05:34,620 --> 01:05:35,620
 More than one.

893
01:05:35,620 --> 01:05:38,620
 But it's . . . Otherwise, it would be extroverted, right?

894
01:05:38,620 --> 01:05:41,620
 Yes, but you can . . . But individual conversation.

895
01:05:41,620 --> 01:05:42,620
 Individually?

896
01:05:42,620 --> 01:05:43,620
 Sure.

897
01:05:43,620 --> 01:05:44,620
 Okay.

898
01:05:44,620 --> 01:05:45,620
 What was the question?

899
01:05:45,620 --> 01:05:46,620
 I'm sorry.

900
01:05:46,620 --> 01:05:49,700
 What are our limitations on approaching city council members?

901
01:05:49,700 --> 01:05:55,860
 I just wanted to make sure that individual conversation, like an individual ethics board

902
01:05:55,860 --> 01:06:01,260
 member and an individual city council member, it is not out of order to have conversation

903
01:06:01,260 --> 01:06:05,660
 about these proceedings, because they're public record.

904
01:06:05,660 --> 01:06:12,460
 Well, that's a correct response, but the only problem, the walking quorum, sometimes can

905
01:06:12,460 --> 01:06:13,460
 become a problem, too.

906
01:06:13,460 --> 01:06:14,460
 Yeah, but that . . . Right.

907
01:06:14,460 --> 01:06:15,460
 That's not . . . Exactly.

908
01:06:15,460 --> 01:06:24,300
 So what I'm hearing to kind of move things along, I hear three votes for revision.

909
01:06:24,300 --> 01:06:32,860
 There's one for a joint meeting and one for a vote on other . . . or we could do more

910
01:06:32,860 --> 01:06:33,860
 than one.

911
01:06:33,860 --> 01:06:42,540
 So does someone want to make a . . . I would like to make a motion.

912
01:06:42,540 --> 01:06:48,780
 I would like to make a motion to, once we adopt reconsideration of the language, to

913
01:06:48,780 --> 01:06:51,780
 invite the city council to participate in our conversation.

914
01:06:51,780 --> 01:06:59,860
 I don't think that needs a motion, and I'm also not posted for action on this item.

915
01:06:59,860 --> 01:07:00,860
 Okay.

916
01:07:00,860 --> 01:07:05,980
 So if y'all want to . . . That's a . . . you're speaking about the next time y'all make a

917
01:07:05,980 --> 01:07:06,980
 slate of recommendations.

918
01:07:06,980 --> 01:07:09,980
 So that kind of takes . . . We'll come back to this in a minute.

919
01:07:09,980 --> 01:07:14,580
 We'll take a note of that and see what happens next.

920
01:07:14,580 --> 01:07:20,580
 So there's direction to invite the city council to participate in a discussion.

921
01:07:20,580 --> 01:07:27,580
 Once we've made revisions, which I think that we could probably take care of it.

922
01:07:27,580 --> 01:07:32,940
 I think I would recommend just looking at the two things we recommended and just tighten

923
01:07:32,940 --> 01:07:33,940
 them up.

924
01:07:33,940 --> 01:07:37,820
 Take words out rather than leave them in.

925
01:07:37,820 --> 01:07:41,820
 Can I amend that, because I think that is not really what I intended.

926
01:07:41,820 --> 01:07:49,500
 I didn't really intend them to . . . I would like for them to be present during our conversation.

927
01:07:49,500 --> 01:07:56,620
 Yes, they're able to watch it, and yes, they're able to look at the video, but I would like

928
01:07:56,620 --> 01:08:05,620
 for them to be present during our actual discussion and revising so that they actually see the

929
01:08:05,620 --> 01:08:14,440
 thought and care that goes into what we're doing and that we are being held to the standards.

930
01:08:14,440 --> 01:08:19,440
 So kind of do them both at the same time.

931
01:08:19,440 --> 01:08:20,440
 Yes.

932
01:08:20,440 --> 01:08:21,440
 Okay.

933
01:08:21,440 --> 01:08:22,940
 That makes sense.

934
01:08:22,940 --> 01:08:23,940
 Okay.

935
01:08:23,940 --> 01:08:28,980
 So I think the next thing is to receive a report.

936
01:08:28,980 --> 01:08:30,940
 So we'll move on to item D.

937
01:08:30,940 --> 01:08:39,420
 BOE 24-24-24.

938
01:08:39,420 --> 01:08:43,940
 Receive a report, hold a discussion, and give staff direction regarding the ethics ordinance

939
01:08:43,940 --> 01:08:48,620
 alignment with the 2017 Charter Review Committee recommendations.

940
01:08:48,620 --> 01:08:52,260
 I haven't really prepared all that much.

941
01:08:52,260 --> 01:08:59,260
 I've listed the four requirements that the voters approved during the 2017 Charter Election.

942
01:08:59,260 --> 01:09:05,540
 I have . . . in the backup, I gave you slides from their committee discussion, and I have

943
01:09:05,540 --> 01:09:11,540
 backups of what the slides were if you all want them.

944
01:09:11,540 --> 01:09:12,540
 Okay.

945
01:09:12,540 --> 01:09:32,020
 So if you would like, I have this slide prepared so we can list them if we believe some sections

946
01:09:32,020 --> 01:09:35,580
 that currently exist address the current requirements.

947
01:09:35,580 --> 01:09:43,220
 There's also some recommended elements that are not listed but that are on those slides

948
01:09:43,220 --> 01:09:45,080
 that I came up with.

949
01:09:45,080 --> 01:09:50,460
 So what to kind of . . . I'm just trying to move things along a little bit.

950
01:09:50,460 --> 01:10:03,020
 So on page 13 of Exhibit 2, the recommended charter language for ethics, there is a definition

951
01:10:03,020 --> 01:10:12,580
 of a prohibitive improper economic interest and personal gain in the code.

952
01:10:12,580 --> 01:10:15,580
 What's the question?

953
01:10:15,580 --> 01:10:17,820
 The first item is in the code, right?

954
01:10:17,820 --> 01:10:18,820
 Right.

955
01:10:18,820 --> 01:10:25,780
 And then the second definition of recusal, that's definitely in the code.

956
01:10:25,780 --> 01:10:31,580
 So I . . . number three is not in the code.

957
01:10:31,580 --> 01:10:32,740
 I apologize, Madison.

958
01:10:32,740 --> 01:10:45,300
 I thought that I had the right to do it though, but I don't.

959
01:10:45,300 --> 01:10:46,300
 Okay.

960
01:10:46,300 --> 01:10:47,300
 It's interesting.

961
01:10:47,300 --> 01:10:57,980
 I was looking for something else, and I came across a city council or a work session from

962
01:10:57,980 --> 01:11:06,180
 2017 or 2016, actually, and they were talking about whether they even wanted this to be

963
01:11:06,180 --> 01:11:07,180
 in the code.

964
01:11:07,180 --> 01:11:12,180
 And they kind of took a straw poll, and it was four to three and then they decided to

965
01:11:12,180 --> 01:11:18,180
 send it to . . . So I'm thinking they never wanted the appearance of conflict of interest

966
01:11:18,180 --> 01:11:27,180
 to be in the code, and it is most certainly not there, unless it's in the aspirational

967
01:11:27,180 --> 01:11:28,180
 code.

968
01:11:28,180 --> 01:11:35,260
 You and I were both on the Charter Review Committee.

969
01:11:35,260 --> 01:11:43,660
 When these four were written, for example, the definition of prohibited improper EGA,

970
01:11:43,660 --> 01:11:49,420
 this was not even the $500, $1,000 discussion.

971
01:11:49,420 --> 01:11:54,780
 When we left the Charter Review, we were thinking in terms of all the other cities that had

972
01:11:54,780 --> 01:12:05,220
 defined it, and so this was kind of an unfortunate situation where all of these . . . the code

973
01:12:05,220 --> 01:12:16,100
 that was passed essentially ignored these, and so whether or not that makes the code

974
01:12:16,100 --> 01:12:22,220
 that was passed any less legitimate is not a question that I can answer, but the citizens

975
01:12:22,220 --> 01:12:26,620
 and the task force said, "These are the things that we want included."

976
01:12:26,620 --> 01:12:27,620
 Overwhelmingly.

977
01:12:27,620 --> 01:12:28,620
 Overwhelmingly.

978
01:12:28,620 --> 01:12:34,680
 And these were basically ignored by the 2017 city council.

979
01:12:34,680 --> 01:12:41,260
 When they went to work, by the way excluding citizens from the task force, when they went

980
01:12:41,260 --> 01:12:44,780
 off in a dark corner, they started writing an ethics code.

981
01:12:44,780 --> 01:12:47,740
 These four things were never discussed.

982
01:12:47,740 --> 01:12:52,700
 And number four, administration and enforcement of ethics ordinance coupled with strong and

983
01:12:52,700 --> 01:12:54,420
 meaningful remedies for infraction.

984
01:12:54,420 --> 01:12:55,420
 Exactly.

985
01:12:55,420 --> 01:12:56,420
 Definitely not there.

986
01:12:56,420 --> 01:12:57,420
 We can write in the water.

987
01:12:57,420 --> 01:12:58,420
 That's it.

988
01:12:58,420 --> 01:13:02,420
 These citizen mandates, they were ignored when the code was drafted.

989
01:13:02,420 --> 01:13:03,420
 That may be uncomfortable, but that's a fact.

990
01:13:03,420 --> 01:13:04,420
 Any more comments on this?

991
01:13:04,420 --> 01:13:27,300
 Is there a direction to . . . would you like me to bring anything back in regards to this?

992
01:13:27,300 --> 01:13:39,340
 I can just say, if we do tweak our code, we got a lot of work to do.

993
01:13:39,340 --> 01:13:45,540
 But the fact that 80% of the people . . . I remember as we were finishing the charter

994
01:13:45,540 --> 01:13:51,340
 review, the chairman said, "Well, there's one thing I think won't pass and that's the

995
01:13:51,340 --> 01:13:52,340
 ethics code."

996
01:13:52,340 --> 01:13:58,940
 And I thought, I think it will.

997
01:13:58,940 --> 01:14:00,700
 I mean, I think we're in the same place.

998
01:14:00,700 --> 01:14:07,220
 We're in the same place with our recommendations right now, is if we can work for the next

999
01:14:07,220 --> 01:14:12,420
 six months and come up with something and present it, and at this point I think we're

1000
01:14:12,420 --> 01:14:13,420
 just spinning our wheels.

1001
01:14:13,420 --> 01:14:20,620
 I think, I think there needs to be . . . I don't know, I mean, I don't like the idea

1002
01:14:20,620 --> 01:14:24,740
 of the City Council to tell us what to do, because that's not what we're supposed . . . that

1003
01:14:24,740 --> 01:14:29,780
 is not the entity that we are, but at the same time I think that we need to open up

1004
01:14:29,780 --> 01:14:34,900
 a conversation in terms of how to move forward and make this functional for the city.

1005
01:14:34,900 --> 01:14:40,700
 This is going to sound like a really country saying it, it's like the fox guarding the

1006
01:14:40,700 --> 01:14:43,100
 chicken coop.

1007
01:14:43,100 --> 01:14:47,220
 And not to say that the City Council members should not have input.

1008
01:14:47,220 --> 01:14:54,420
 I would never, ever say that, but I think the citizens should really be consulted and

1009
01:14:54,420 --> 01:15:02,900
 their consultation was very, very fast, and they came back and overwhelmingly said, "Yes,

1010
01:15:02,900 --> 01:15:14,180
 80 percent, 80 percent said we want this, and we've had a very weak hope, so . . ."

1011
01:15:14,180 --> 01:15:22,280
 Well, I think there's no direction right now other than to just make a note that, that

1012
01:15:22,280 --> 01:15:29,380
 really the things that the citizens voted in are not in this code.

1013
01:15:29,380 --> 01:15:34,360
 It is a consensus, I'm not overstating.

1014
01:15:34,360 --> 01:15:39,980
 Okay, so let's, we're going to go back to item B, Receive Your Report, Hold a Discussion,

1015
01:15:39,980 --> 01:15:48,600
 and give staff direction regarding the future meeting topics.

1016
01:15:48,600 --> 01:15:51,780
 We are scheduled to have a meeting in July, right?

1017
01:15:51,780 --> 01:15:52,780
 August.

1018
01:15:52,780 --> 01:15:55,780
 Yes, August is our next regularly scheduled meeting.

1019
01:15:55,780 --> 01:15:56,780
 Okay.

1020
01:15:56,780 --> 01:16:05,380
 I would recommend that there be three things on the agenda, and one would be, or two things.

1021
01:16:05,380 --> 01:16:13,340
 We can work on what we sent and we can, you know, propose changes to tighten it up, and

1022
01:16:13,340 --> 01:16:19,020
 then recommend that the Council be invited to the next meeting, and I guess we'll need

1023
01:16:19,020 --> 01:16:25,980
 to figure out a format for that, because I think we need to be guiding this discussion.

1024
01:16:25,980 --> 01:16:35,180
 I think they should be invited to observe, and I think our, our agenda item should be

1025
01:16:35,180 --> 01:16:44,180
 incorporating, either incorporating or rejecting their feedback to our previously proposed

1026
01:16:44,180 --> 01:16:47,180
 amendments.

1027
01:16:47,180 --> 01:16:57,180
 And we can go through, I'm happy to go through and make a list of all the actionable input

1028
01:16:57,180 --> 01:17:02,180
 that they gave during the work session, and then we can go one by one through those and

1029
01:17:02,180 --> 01:17:07,180
 decide if we want to incorporate it or not.

1030
01:17:07,180 --> 01:17:08,180
 I don't know what else to do.

1031
01:17:08,180 --> 01:17:15,180
 I think that sounds really good, because we are listening to them, but it's time they

1032
01:17:15,180 --> 01:17:16,180
 listen to us.

1033
01:17:16,180 --> 01:17:17,180
 You know, we are smart people.

1034
01:17:17,180 --> 01:17:20,180
 We have spent many, many hours on this.

1035
01:17:20,180 --> 01:17:28,180
 I felt really disrespected that, honestly, I think we know a lot more about city ethics

1036
01:17:28,180 --> 01:17:33,180
 than all of them put together, and it's not because they're not smart people, but they

1037
01:17:33,180 --> 01:17:37,180
 have so many more things to think about.

1038
01:17:37,180 --> 01:17:48,180
 So, I'm sure I'm going to really make some people mad by that comment, but it was disrespectful.

1039
01:17:48,180 --> 01:17:58,180
 I'd like to revisit the next meeting, the idea of having a consultant come and talk

1040
01:17:58,180 --> 01:18:06,180
 to us, because I think we could definitely run some ideas by the consultant and get some

1041
01:18:06,180 --> 01:18:14,180
 feedback on how to present these ideas in a way that doesn't seem so threatening to

1042
01:18:14,180 --> 01:18:19,180
 the city council, so we can be more cooperative rather than adversarial.

1043
01:18:19,180 --> 01:18:23,180
 And I think an outside consultant could be very helpful.

1044
01:18:23,180 --> 01:18:24,180
 I don't know who that would be.

1045
01:18:24,180 --> 01:18:27,180
 You and somebody, but we can talk about that at the next meeting.

1046
01:18:27,180 --> 01:18:34,180
 So, we have to go through a procurement process according to state law.

1047
01:18:34,180 --> 01:18:40,180
 I can look and basically present here some options.

1048
01:18:40,180 --> 01:18:46,180
 It could even be more than one person, based on the direction today.

1049
01:18:46,180 --> 01:18:48,180
 I can bring that back.

1050
01:18:48,180 --> 01:18:50,180
 Options for a consultant at the next meeting.

1051
01:18:50,180 --> 01:18:56,180
 That sounds good.

1052
01:18:56,180 --> 01:19:03,180
 So, we're talking about starting to work on revisions.

1053
01:19:03,180 --> 01:19:14,180
 I like the idea of looking at everything that they raised, considering a consultant.

1054
01:19:14,180 --> 01:19:17,180
 Discussing the format.

1055
01:19:17,180 --> 01:19:22,180
 Further discussing the format that we'll use for a joint meeting.

1056
01:19:22,180 --> 01:19:25,180
 Yep.

1057
01:19:25,180 --> 01:19:31,180
 So, just to be clear, would you like me to informally invite them to attend the next

1058
01:19:31,180 --> 01:19:33,180
 meeting?

1059
01:19:33,180 --> 01:19:36,180
 Would you like to send them a letter asking them to attend?

1060
01:19:36,180 --> 01:19:40,180
 Are you talking deeply into that discussion about the format?

1061
01:19:40,180 --> 01:19:49,180
 I was thinking we need to start working on our proposal to tweak it and then invite

1062
01:19:49,180 --> 01:19:53,180
 them to the meeting after that.

1063
01:19:53,180 --> 01:19:58,180
 And next time I think we should discuss how that's going to look.

1064
01:19:58,180 --> 01:20:06,180
 Because I do not want it to look anything like the Council meeting, the work session.

1065
01:20:06,180 --> 01:20:12,180
 I want mutual respect.

1066
01:20:12,180 --> 01:20:14,180
 Not a constructive format.

1067
01:20:14,180 --> 01:20:16,180
 No, it was not.

1068
01:20:16,180 --> 01:20:24,180
 I think you should listen to constituents, even if their ideas are stupid.

1069
01:20:24,180 --> 01:20:33,180
 You should still listen.

1070
01:20:33,180 --> 01:20:35,180
 Well, I made my point clear.

1071
01:20:35,180 --> 01:20:39,180
 I feel that they should be part of the discussion and they should actually watch a

1072
01:20:39,180 --> 01:20:40,180
 meeting.

1073
01:20:40,180 --> 01:20:47,180
 That there is decorum and people wait to be called on.

1074
01:20:47,180 --> 01:20:52,180
 Well, I think that's what we're thinking about.

1075
01:20:52,180 --> 01:20:54,180
 That's not what I heard from your statement.

1076
01:20:54,180 --> 01:20:58,180
 What I heard from your statement was that you wanted to tweak it first and then

1077
01:20:58,180 --> 01:21:00,180
 invite them for a conversation.

1078
01:21:00,180 --> 01:21:01,180
 Okay.

1079
01:21:01,180 --> 01:21:05,180
 But I think we can still go through each of the things and say this is what we're

1080
01:21:05,180 --> 01:21:13,180
 recommending and give them a chance to respond to that.

1081
01:21:13,180 --> 01:21:14,180
 I do not understand you.

1082
01:21:14,180 --> 01:21:22,180
 Okay, we need to have a meeting to consider what the tweaks might be based on what

1083
01:21:22,180 --> 01:21:28,180
 the concerns they raise were and then have them back and say these are what we're

1084
01:21:28,180 --> 01:21:32,180
 recommending and here's what we're doing it and we would like to hear what you

1085
01:21:32,180 --> 01:21:33,180
 have to say about it.

1086
01:21:33,180 --> 01:21:36,180
 Okay, so are you recommending that we're doing the tweaks in one meeting and

1087
01:21:36,180 --> 01:21:38,180
 then invite them to the next meeting?

1088
01:21:38,180 --> 01:21:42,180
 And that is exactly what I said is where I disagree.

1089
01:21:42,180 --> 01:21:44,180
 Okay.

1090
01:21:44,180 --> 01:21:53,180
 Because my statement was that I feel that they should hear and see the work that

1091
01:21:53,180 --> 01:21:59,180
 is put in rather than just giving them a presentation.

1092
01:21:59,180 --> 01:22:00,180
 Okay.

1093
01:22:00,180 --> 01:22:08,180
 Because I do not know what a meeting would look like if we're presenting them

1094
01:22:08,180 --> 01:22:13,180
 upfront outside of a work session in our meeting with the tweaks that we're

1095
01:22:13,180 --> 01:22:14,180
 making.

1096
01:22:14,180 --> 01:22:17,180
 Is there room for conversation in that?

1097
01:22:17,180 --> 01:22:24,180
 Does any city council member automatically get the right to speak in our meetings?

1098
01:22:24,180 --> 01:22:26,180
 No.

1099
01:22:26,180 --> 01:22:28,180
 They're not, right?

1100
01:22:28,180 --> 01:22:35,180
 My understanding is that unless we have a joint meeting, they are basically

1101
01:22:35,180 --> 01:22:38,180
 attending as a revenue.

1102
01:22:38,180 --> 01:22:42,180
 And that was my understanding and that is what I was working under.

1103
01:22:42,180 --> 01:22:48,180
 But if they attend as a quorum, then it will need to be a joint meeting.

1104
01:22:48,180 --> 01:22:53,180
 And the questions arise about chairs that meeting.

1105
01:22:53,180 --> 01:22:57,180
 But so I don't have the answer to that question.

1106
01:22:57,180 --> 01:23:01,180
 I think that would have to be worked out in an agreement.

1107
01:23:01,180 --> 01:23:06,180
 Would you figure out as we're starting the tweaking process, what would that

1108
01:23:06,180 --> 01:23:07,180
 look like?

1109
01:23:07,180 --> 01:23:11,180
 We've had city council members come to this meeting before.

1110
01:23:11,180 --> 01:23:15,180
 Council Member Holland came somewhat recently.

1111
01:23:15,180 --> 01:23:18,180
 And there's nothing wrong with them coming individually.

1112
01:23:18,180 --> 01:23:21,180
 This meeting is streamed online and recorded.

1113
01:23:21,180 --> 01:23:27,180
 So those are options that you'll have for recommending that they observe how you

1114
01:23:27,180 --> 01:23:32,180
 deal with that business and what you'll do without running into the issue of

1115
01:23:32,180 --> 01:23:38,180
 asking them to accidentally have a quorum.

1116
01:23:38,180 --> 01:23:39,180
 Okay.

1117
01:23:39,180 --> 01:23:41,180
 The state is very --

1118
01:23:41,180 --> 01:23:44,180
 So then in that case, thank you for that clarification.

1119
01:23:44,180 --> 01:23:53,180
 In that case, can we send an official notification or something that we would

1120
01:23:53,180 --> 01:23:59,180
 request for them to please either attend or watch online what we're doing?

1121
01:23:59,180 --> 01:24:04,180
 If more than four -- I think their quorum limit is four.

1122
01:24:04,180 --> 01:24:09,180
 So if four or more attend, then that is technically a city council meeting.

1123
01:24:09,180 --> 01:24:18,180
 And that's where we run into the issues.

1124
01:24:18,180 --> 01:24:19,180
 Right.

1125
01:24:19,180 --> 01:24:20,180
 That's true.

1126
01:24:20,180 --> 01:24:26,180
 We can -- I don't know all the options without talking to the city secretary's

1127
01:24:26,180 --> 01:24:28,180
 office and the city attorney's office.

1128
01:24:28,180 --> 01:24:32,180
 We can certainly send them a letter asking them to attend, but we would have

1129
01:24:32,180 --> 01:24:36,180
 to be very careful about quorum issues.

1130
01:24:36,180 --> 01:24:43,180
 And I don't know how to get around that apart from asking them to let me know

1131
01:24:43,180 --> 01:24:47,180
 or we could post a potential for a quorum.

1132
01:24:47,180 --> 01:24:53,180
 They wouldn't -- if we did that and they all showed up, we'd have to say, like,

1133
01:24:53,180 --> 01:24:55,180
 they can't talk maybe?

1134
01:24:55,180 --> 01:24:56,180
 I don't know.

1135
01:24:56,180 --> 01:24:57,180
 I think there's a lot of --

1136
01:24:57,180 --> 01:25:00,180
 That's where we get into the problems.

1137
01:25:00,180 --> 01:25:03,180
 Well, but problems are there to be solved.

1138
01:25:03,180 --> 01:25:04,180
 I mean, I'm sorry.

1139
01:25:04,180 --> 01:25:05,180
 That is my goal.

1140
01:25:05,180 --> 01:25:07,180
 That is what I do every day.

1141
01:25:07,180 --> 01:25:08,180
 Problems are there to be solved.

1142
01:25:08,180 --> 01:25:12,180
 If we want to move forward and if we want to be strategic about what we're doing

1143
01:25:12,180 --> 01:25:17,180
 so that we can actually make an impact, then we're going to have to be at

1144
01:25:17,180 --> 01:25:21,180
 sometimes trying to figure out how to address something that does not have

1145
01:25:21,180 --> 01:25:28,180
 an easy solution at this moment, and we also need to be a little bit more

1146
01:25:28,180 --> 01:25:32,180
 putting our foot forward in other ways, because right now we are very passive

1147
01:25:32,180 --> 01:25:37,180
 in our goal and we are very -- and this is where we're at.

1148
01:25:37,180 --> 01:25:38,180
 We're spinning our wheels.

1149
01:25:38,180 --> 01:25:43,180
 And so I'm sorry if that sounds controversial, but at the same time,

1150
01:25:43,180 --> 01:25:48,180
 if we want to solve a problem, then we need to take the steps to do that.

1151
01:25:48,180 --> 01:25:53,180
 I like the idea of having a meeting where we come up -- I would like to look at

1152
01:25:53,180 --> 01:25:58,180
 those two sections where we propose changes and decide -- because obviously

1153
01:25:58,180 --> 01:26:02,180
 they're going to look at the whole sections -- is there further tweaking on

1154
01:26:02,180 --> 01:26:09,180
 these two sections, and then we would have it ready to vote on, I guess,

1155
01:26:09,180 --> 01:26:10,180
 the following session.

1156
01:26:10,180 --> 01:26:16,180
 At that point, that's when I'd like to figure out how we involve counsel.

1157
01:26:16,180 --> 01:26:21,180
 We wouldn't have made the final decision, but we would have talked a bit about

1158
01:26:21,180 --> 01:26:23,180
 where we think that needs to go.

1159
01:26:23,180 --> 01:26:27,180
 So I'm not trying to leave them out, but I'm also not trying to get ourselves

1160
01:26:27,180 --> 01:26:30,180
 in trouble, or the counsel.

1161
01:26:30,180 --> 01:26:32,180
 So we want to follow this.

1162
01:26:32,180 --> 01:26:33,180
 That is not my intent.

1163
01:26:33,180 --> 01:26:34,180
 Yeah, no, I know.

1164
01:26:34,180 --> 01:26:37,180
 My intent is to educate, and for them to actually get a sense of what we're

1165
01:26:37,180 --> 01:26:38,180
 doing.

1166
01:26:38,180 --> 01:26:39,180
 Andrea, I did not hear it that way.

1167
01:26:39,180 --> 01:26:45,180
 I just -- I think -- but I do like the idea of having some way to have

1168
01:26:45,180 --> 01:26:50,180
 discussions, and I think we just need next time to think about how we're

1169
01:26:50,180 --> 01:26:51,180
 going to do this.

1170
01:26:51,180 --> 01:26:56,180
 So -- but if we are just working on the beginning of the tweaking and going

1171
01:26:56,180 --> 01:27:03,180
 through the concerns, then I think we would just be saying, here's what we're

1172
01:27:03,180 --> 01:27:07,180
 looking at, and we wouldn't have voted by then, because we would have just

1173
01:27:07,180 --> 01:27:11,180
 said, this is where we're thinking.

1174
01:27:11,180 --> 01:27:17,180
 Well, that part doesn't matter to me, if we have voted on it or not.

1175
01:27:17,180 --> 01:27:22,180
 Because really -- and here's -- I mean, that is -- I'm an educator, and if it

1176
01:27:22,180 --> 01:27:28,180
 takes us educating the city council of what we're doing by them, by ensuring

1177
01:27:28,180 --> 01:27:32,180
 that they're actually watching what we're doing, then that's called modeling.

1178
01:27:32,180 --> 01:27:33,180
 I think that's great.

1179
01:27:33,180 --> 01:27:34,180
 I know.

1180
01:27:34,180 --> 01:27:36,180
 So that is the way we're proposing this.

1181
01:27:36,180 --> 01:27:37,180
 Yes.

1182
01:27:37,180 --> 01:27:38,180
 Okay.

1183
01:27:38,180 --> 01:27:39,180
 So let's go with that path.

1184
01:27:39,180 --> 01:27:40,180
 Okay.

1185
01:27:40,180 --> 01:27:46,180
 So my understanding of the direction for next meeting is look at the

1186
01:27:46,180 --> 01:27:52,180
 feedback, specific feedback from the council meeting to try to incorporate it

1187
01:27:52,180 --> 01:27:56,180
 into any revisions that you would like to make.

1188
01:27:56,180 --> 01:28:01,180
 Have -- discuss options for a consultant, potentially, and then also discuss

1189
01:28:01,180 --> 01:28:07,180
 options for how to engage the council on future revisions for August 5th.

1190
01:28:07,180 --> 01:28:09,180
 Everybody feel the same?

1191
01:28:09,180 --> 01:28:11,180
 Yes.

1192
01:28:11,180 --> 01:28:14,180
 Thank you very much, all of you, for your discussion.

1193
01:28:16,180 --> 01:28:17,180
 I appreciate it.

1194
01:28:17,180 --> 01:28:29,180
 So it is now 6.58 p.m., and this meeting is adjourned.

1195
01:28:29,180 --> 01:28:30,180
 Move to adjourn?

1196
01:28:30,180 --> 01:28:31,180
 Yes.

1197
01:28:31,180 --> 01:28:32,180
 Okay.